Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

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

  • RockySullivan
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    If it was pitch dark, how would he see it?
    Whose saying it was that dark...it was light enough for the mutilations

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
    I've always found the clean water strange, why wouldn't the ripper have used it to wash his hands? I could see why she check the tray of water, to see if the ripper had used it..
    If it was pitch dark, how would he see it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Guy
    replied
    Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
    I've always found the clean water strange, why wouldn't the ripper have used it to wash his hands?
    Time, probably, Rocky.
    One thing about the Ripper is that he knew not to hang around.

    Leave a comment:


  • RockySullivan
    replied
    I've always found the clean water strange, why wouldn't the ripper have used it to wash his hands? I could see why she check the tray of water, to see if the ripper had used it..

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Guy
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Thanks Jon
    well that answers that!

    unless it should have been dry by the time the police found it.
    Unless Mrs R was covering for John and put it under the tap that morning.
    But she does say other people used the tap, and it was a leather apron... but notice that she checks the tray of water by the tap at 6am on Sat morning with a dead body lying a few feet away. You`d think she`d be otherwise occupied by the nearby corpse.

    Perhaps she`s just cleaned up after John ?!?!? Rinsed his leather apron and chucked away the bloody water from the tray.
    She also says he hadn`t used his apron for a month, which takes us back to the date of the Tabram murder.
    Last edited by Jon Guy; 02-09-2016, 10:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
    Hi Abby

    John`s mum at the inquest:
    On Thursday, Sept. 6, I found my son's leather apron in the cellar mildewed. He had not used it for a month. I took it and put it under the tap in the yard, and left it there. It was found there on Saturday morning by the police, who took charge of it. The apron had remained there from Thursday to Saturday.

    [Coroner] Was this tap used? - Yes, by all of us in the house. The apron was on the stones. The police took away an empty box, used for nails, and the steel out of a boy's gaiter. There was a pan of clean water near to the tap when I went in the yard at six o'clock on Saturday. It was there on Friday night at eight o'clock, and it looked as if it had not been disturbed
    Thanks Jon
    well that answers that!

    unless it should have been dry by the time the police found it.

    Leave a comment:


  • RockySullivan
    replied
    Thank you...it's interesting the police took the "steel out of a boy's gaiter" that was found next to the body. They may have thought it had some significance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Guy
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Hi Pandora
    I agree-I doubt he would lie and PLACE himself at the murder scene with that lie.

    IMHO he would have seen the body lying at his feet a few feet away, especially since his attention was directed downward toward his boot!

    I think he may have sat down to cut the leather, couldn't do it with the dull knife and later cut it at the market. he just didn't get into that amount of detail the first time he told the story.

    Long and Cadosh IMHO were valid honest witnesses who saw/heard Chapman and either one was off on their times a bit.


    If anything-I would focus on the wet leather apron that was found at the scene and belonged to him. Why was it wet? was it wet from rain or had it been recently rinsed off? did it rain recently that night/ morning?

    These aren't rhetorical questions-do you know the answers?

    Because if it hadn't rained and looked like it had been recently washed then why and by whom? did Richardson wash and leave his apron there recently??
    I think you see where I'm going with this.
    Hi Abby

    John`s mum at the inquest:
    On Thursday, Sept. 6, I found my son's leather apron in the cellar mildewed. He had not used it for a month. I took it and put it under the tap in the yard, and left it there. It was found there on Saturday morning by the police, who took charge of it. The apron had remained there from Thursday to Saturday.

    [Coroner] Was this tap used? - Yes, by all of us in the house. The apron was on the stones. The police took away an empty box, used for nails, and the steel out of a boy's gaiter. There was a pan of clean water near to the tap when I went in the yard at six o'clock on Saturday. It was there on Friday night at eight o'clock, and it looked as if it had not been disturbed

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Pandora View Post
    Iím a Richardsonite? Oh dear.

    Yes it all hinges on what Cadosch heard. I think there is enough evidence we know of (Dr Philips TOD, the half digested potatoes, the unlikeliness of Jack killing in daylight - sunrise was 5:25am that morning) to suggest an earlier time for the murder, but who on earth did Cadosch hear at (approx) 5:20am, and (approx) 5:30am, and who on earth did Mrs Long see at (approx) 5:32am?

    While I have no doubt the police did go to the markets and question Richardsonís fellow workers, itís whether they did it that day, or several days later that I wonder about. Several days later may have skewed their memories of the time.

    And I just canít wrap my head around the idea, that Richardson would place himself at the scene, if he hadnít actually gone there that morning, just because his mother would find out heíd shirked his responsibility. A woman was ripped open in her back yard, so I very much doubt Amelia would have cared whether or not John had checked the lock or not that morning. More likely, in my opinion, he placed himself there because he was there, and couldnít be sure he hadnít been seen.

    And to go back to my original argument, if Dr Philips was right about the TOD, then Annie would have already been dead when Richardson says he turned up. So I guess it depends if you believe he could have missed her body in the yard that morning, both the sight, and the stench - especially if he'd sat down on that step & fiddled with his boot for several minutes.
    Hi Pandora
    I agree-I doubt he would lie and PLACE himself at the murder scene with that lie.

    IMHO he would have seen the body lying at his feet a few feet away, especially since his attention was directed downward toward his boot!

    I think he may have sat down to cut the leather, couldn't do it with the dull knife and later cut it at the market. he just didn't get into that amount of detail the first time he told the story.

    Long and Cadosh IMHO were valid honest witnesses who saw/heard Chapman and either one was off on their times a bit.


    If anything-I would focus on the wet leather apron that was found at the scene and belonged to him. Why was it wet? was it wet from rain or had it been recently rinsed off? did it rain recently that night/ morning?

    These aren't rhetorical questions-do you know the answers?

    Because if it hadn't rained and looked like it had been recently washed then why and by whom? did Richardson wash and leave his apron there recently??
    I think you see where I'm going with this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Guy
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post
    Hi Jon,

    Well, based upon the study I cited, it would most commonly be the case that time of death was 2-6 hours after the last meal-because unidentifiable semi digested food contents were found in the stomach-so sometime between 3:30 am and 7:30 am, although I think we can safely rule out the latter estimate, based upon the time the body was discovered!
    Thanks John
    That`s pretty much what Phillips estimated.

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
    If she had her last meal at 1.30am, John, when was her TOD ?
    Hi Jon,

    Well, based upon the study I cited, it would most commonly be the case that time of death was 2-6 hours after the last meal-because unidentifiable semi digested food contents were found in the stomach-so sometime between 3:30 am and 7:30 am, although I think we can safely rule out the latter estimate, based upon the time the body was discovered!

    Leave a comment:


  • Rosella
    replied
    Thank you again John. So as far as Annie is concerned we are left with a death, knowing that she probably swallowed her last food at about 1:45am, of within the range of the times we've been discussing. Back to more reading about the possible temperature of the body etc!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Guy
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post
    A slight correction to my last post! Of course, Dr Phillips could not identify the type of food contents found in the stomach, so in these circumstances -semi digested unidentifiable food particles found in the stomach-it is more commonly the case that death occured 2-6 hours after the last meal:http://www.scopemed.org/?jft=45&ft=45-1373201035

    Therefore, if time of death was, say, 5:30 am, that would seem to indicate that Chapman most likely had her last meal between 11:30 pm and 3:30 am, and if, say, 4:30 am, sometime between 10:30 pm and 2:30 am.
    If she had her last meal at 1.30am, John, when was her TOD ?

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    A slight correction to my last post! Of course, Dr Phillips could not identify the type of food contents found in the stomach, so in these circumstances -semi digested unidentifiable food particles found in the stomach-it is more commonly the case that death occured 2-6 hours after the last meal:http://www.scopemed.org/?jft=45&ft=45-1373201035

    Therefore, if time of death was, say, 5:30 am, that would seem to indicate that Chapman most likely had her last meal between 11:30 pm and 3:30 am, and if, say, 4:30 am, sometime between 10:30 pm and 2:30 am.
    Last edited by John G; 02-09-2016, 05:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by Rosella View Post
    Thank you John. So we are possibly back to a wider time span. The chapter provided in the link states that the digestion process doesn't stop with death. However, considering that Dr Phillips conducted his post mortem at about 2pm on the afternoon following the murder and still found a little food there, it seems a remarkably long time for a potato to be making its way to its final destination even if the TOD was the later time we've been debating not the earlier!
    Hi Rosella,

    Yes, but I think an important consideration is that at some point after death the digestion process would cease although, as you say, it is possible for gastric digestion to continue post mortem.

    It is now known that the normal time the stomach will take to empty a solid meal can be six hours or more, and factors such as fear can extend the digestion process for many hours beyond the normal range.

    However, even if we tentatively accept a six hour time frame, then the best that can be said is that the victim probably died up to six hours after her last meal.

    It may, however, be relevant that identifiable semi digested food contents were found in the stomach: a study determined that, in these circumstances, death most commonly occurred 0-2 hours after the last meal: http://www.scopemed.org/?jft=45&ft=45-1373201035

    There's an interesting legal discussion on this issue in a Canadian criminal appeal case, R v Truscott:http://netk.net.au/Truscott/Appeal3.asp
    Last edited by John G; 02-09-2016, 05:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X