Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by harry View Post
    Pandora,
    At least you have raised an interesting supposition,that Chapman's lost time was spent in the yard of 29 Hanbury Street.I can well believe in the possibility.It to me would explain the sighting by Long,who I believe was telling the truth.
    Thanks Harry, yes, it makes sense. I feel that Annie's murder, and murder site, may offer more clues yet as to the identity of who Jack was.
    Cheers,
    Pandora.

    Comment


    • In respect of time of death estimates, I would note the opinion of the forensic pathologist consulted by Trevor Marriott, Dr Biggs:

      "In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ' time of death' based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognise that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn't even attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn't estimate a time since death within less than a few hours." ( Marriott, 2013)


      And this is the official guidance, given to pathologists, by the Forensic Science Regulator:

      6.3 Use of Results

      Investigations


      "When providing a ToD estimate to the investigator the pathologist should take the following steps:

      A) The pathologist must make clear that the estimate is only an estimate and the accuracy cannot be determined.

      B) The pathologist must explain that death could have occurred outside the estimated period and, perhaps, a significant period outside it.

      C) Advise that the estimate should not be used to :

      i) Define the period in which death occurred;

      ii) Assign probabilities to likely periods of death; or

      iii) Include or exclude a suspect from the investigation."

      Source: Forensic Science Regulator Guidance: The Use of Time of Death Estimates Based on Heat Loss From the Body, FSR-G-211, Issue 1, 2014.
      Last edited by John G; 02-08-2016, 05:03 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
        Dr. Phillips does not provide a lower estimate, because he cannot.

        What he is saying in my view is:

        'Given our conventional understanding of the time required for a body to cool after death "I should say at least two hours, probably more BUT, (with emphasis on the BUT) the morning was fairly cold, and the body would have become cold sooner (or cool rapidly) in consequence."'

        The all important detail is the "BUT", followed by his caveat that the body would have "cooled sooner". Meaning, sooner than conventional wisdom would dictate, which led to the "two hours or more" previously mentioned.

        I think Swanson was acknowledging that it couldn't be 45 minutes or so, per Mrs Long
        We are going to have to disagree, Jon. Ti my mind, Phillips DID give a low extreme of time: two hours.

        If the two hours were negotiable, he would not have said "At least" two hours. He would reasonably have said "somewhere around two hours.

        But he never thought that it WAS "somewhere around two hours" - he thiught it was MORE than two hours.

        Two hours was a minimum.

        It was PROBABLY more.

        The "but" relates to how he was ready to accept just two hours - his given extreme low - on account of the chilly conditions, as per:

        "I think that she has been dead for at least three hours. That is what I think is probable. Less probable is that she has been dead for as little as two hours only, BUT on account of the temperature being low, that may nevertheless be the case.

        No doctor says probably three, at least two - but it could be one. That would be to dissolve his own "at least" into no relevance and idle chatter.

        To me, that was never going to happen. So letīs just disagree.

        Comment


        • RockySullivan: Richardson sat with his feet on the ground.

          Richardson SAID that he did. Earlier, he said that he didnīt.

          Chapman's head woulve been right at his feet where he was focused,

          No. That would take poor Annies head lying on the ground before the stairs. She was lying to the left of the stairs.

          ...the door wouldn't have obscured his view nor do I think he'd hold up open.

          His head was not at his feet, Rocky. The door would have swung in against his legs, I think we can agree on that - it was a dor that closed itself. He would NOT have focused on the ground to the left of him, he would have focused to the right - the cellar door.
          Do we know that he was sitting at a right angle to the wall? No, we do not. He could have been sitting in a 45 degree angle, tilted to his right. That would make sense visavi the cellar door. In such a case, the door would have swung in against his backside.

          He said it was light out and could see all around.

          He said it was NOT light, but it was GETTING light, and he could see all around. But did he look all around?

          I don't think there's anything to indicate his mother asked him to check the lock daily.

          He did so on market days, on account of the earlier break-in. He would have done it primarily to help his mother out.

          Originally he said she wasn't aware of any theft, also it seemed like the cellar was Richardson workplace. It's strange that he would check a door that has a lock when Tyler would be there in an hour or two anyway.

          If he did it on a regular basis, it would not be strange. But maybe he didnīt. Maybe he SAID he did, and did not want his mother to find out in retrospect that he had been misleading her.

          It seems strange that somebody can miss a body lying so close, but it is very hard to establsh the exact angles, light conditions etcetera, and we knlw that the contemporary police were not able to rule out that this was exactly what happened. To me, that - excuse the pun - leaves the door open for him having missed out.

          At the end of the day, I feel a lot more certain that Annie was in place then I do about Richardson being where he said he was.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by John G View Post
            In respect of time of death estimates, I would note the opinion of the forensic pathologist consulted by Trevor Marriott, Dr Biggs:

            "In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ' time of death' based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognise that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn't even attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn't estimate a time since death within less than a few hours." ( Marriott, 2013)


            And this is the official guidance, given to pathologists, by the Forensic Science Regulator:

            6.3 Use of Results

            Investigations


            "When providing a ToD estimate to the investigator the pathologist should take the following steps:

            A) The pathologist must make clear that the estimate is only an estimate and the accuracy cannot be determined.

            B) The pathologist must explain that death could have occurred outside the estimated period and, perhaps, a significant period outside it.

            C) Advise that the estimate should not be used to :

            i) Define the period in which death occurred;

            ii) Assign probabilities to likely periods of death; or

            iii) Include or exclude a suspect from the investigation."

            Source: Forensic Science Regulator Guidance: The Use of Time of Death Estimates Based on Heat Loss From the Body, FSR-G-211, Issue 1, 2014.
            And still, they ALWAYS check body temperature...?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              And still, they ALWAYS check body temperature...?
              Yes, it makes you wonder why they bother, given the high degree of uncertainty!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post
                Yes, it makes you wonder why they bother, given the high degree of uncertainty!
                Well, the fact that they DO bother, tells me that they find the method useful.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  A dozen women or so in Millers Court were willing to testify that they had heard the "Oh, murder!" cry - at varying removes in time.It was apparent that they were after their fifteen minutes of fame, nothing else.
                  2 witnesses in close proximity to Millers Court..1 actually in it, heard the cry at approx the same time Fisherman, so not all were looking for fame.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                    2 witnesses in close proximity to Millers Court..1 actually in it, heard the cry at approx the same time Fisherman, so not all were looking for fame.
                    Michael, I am quite aware of Lewis and Prater in this context. However, it was reported that numerous other women in the court suddenly ALSO said that they had heard the cry, whilst it was evident that they had done no such thing - they wanted their fifteen minutes of fame, therefore.

                    I have not got the article at hand, but it is there if you look for it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      RockySullivan: Richardson sat with his feet on the ground.

                      Richardson SAID that he did. Earlier, he said that he didnīt.

                      Chapman's head woulve been right at his feet where he was focused,

                      No. That would take poor Annies head lying on the ground before the stairs. She was lying to the left of the stairs.

                      ...the door wouldn't have obscured his view nor do I think he'd hold up open.

                      His head was not at his feet, Rocky. The door would have swung in against his legs, I think we can agree on that - it was a dor that closed itself. He would NOT have focused on the ground to the left of him, he would have focused to the right - the cellar door.
                      Do we know that he was sitting at a right angle to the wall? No, we do not. He could have been sitting in a 45 degree angle, tilted to his right. That would make sense visavi the cellar door. In such a case, the door would have swung in against his backside.

                      He said it was light out and could see all around.

                      He said it was NOT light, but it was GETTING light, and he could see all around. But did he look all around?

                      I don't think there's anything to indicate his mother asked him to check the lock daily.

                      He did so on market days, on account of the earlier break-in. He would have done it primarily to help his mother out.

                      Originally he said she wasn't aware of any theft, also it seemed like the cellar was Richardson workplace. It's strange that he would check a door that has a lock when Tyler would be there in an hour or two anyway.

                      If he did it on a regular basis, it would not be strange. But maybe he didnīt. Maybe he SAID he did, and did not want his mother to find out in retrospect that he had been misleading her.

                      It seems strange that somebody can miss a body lying so close, but it is very hard to establsh the exact angles, light conditions etcetera, and we knlw that the contemporary police were not able to rule out that this was exactly what happened. To me, that - excuse the pun - leaves the door open for him having missed out.

                      At the end of the day, I feel a lot more certain that Annie was in place then I do about Richardson being where he said he was.
                      Rosella said annies head was 6" out from bottom step. If Richardson was sitting with his feet in flagstones looking at his boot, he woulda seen her

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
                        Rosella said annies head was 6" out from bottom step. If Richardson was sitting with his feet in flagstones looking at his boot, he woulda seen her
                        Iīm sure you think so, Rocky. But the truth of the matter is that you do not know the exact details. And the police allowed for Richardson not having seen the body.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Iīm sure you think so, Rocky. But the truth of the matter is that you do not know the exact details. And the police allowed for Richardson not having seen the body.
                          Well at first he told them he didn't go into the yard, so the officer who talked to him that morning might have bought that, but he changed his story to sitting with his feet on the flagstones and he was viewed as a suspect and investigated as such

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
                            Well at first he told them he didn't go into the yard, so the officer who talked to him that morning might have bought that, but he changed his story to sitting with his feet on the flagstones and he was viewed as a suspect and investigated as such
                            Yes, I know that he attracted interest on account of his knife-and-boot story. But that does not change the fact that the police reasoned that he could have missed Chapmans body if it was there. Just like you say, they spoke in-depth with Richardson, and so they could have found out the exact angle he sat in, the exact conditions of the light etcetera.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              Yes, I know that he attracted interest on account of his knife-and-boot story. But that does not change the fact that the police reasoned that he could have missed Chapmans body if it was there. Just like you say, they spoke in-depth with Richardson, and so they could have found out the exact angle he sat in, the exact conditions of the light etcetera.
                              Did Richardson ever mention sitting on the step and cutting his boot before the inquest...from Wolf's dissertation it sounds like this is the first time this version is told by Richardson. The police may have believed Richardson's story before the inquest, but how well was it checked out afterwards?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
                                Did Richardson ever mention sitting on the step and cutting his boot before the inquest...from Wolf's dissertation it sounds like this is the first time this version is told by Richardson. The police may have believed Richardson's story before the inquest, but how well was it checked out afterwards?
                                Not at all, I would guess. They had satisfied themselves at that stage that Richardson was not the man they were looking for, and so he slipped into the witnesses role. As such, that did not mean they lost interest in his story - taken together with Longs and Cadosches efforts, they knew they were looking at a story that was either wrong x 3 or incredibly mistaken on behalf of Phillips.

                                They knew quite well that the body temperature normally does not sink other than very little - if at all - during the first half hour or hour after death, and they knew that the rigor Phillips had reported was very much in line with his suggested TOD (it would have been odd if it was not...).
                                So they leapt. And opted for Phillips. And accepted that Richardson was one out of three people who had served them information that was perhaps not what it seemed to be.
                                How the exact actual grounds for this looked in Richardsons case, we will in all probability never know.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X