Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

Fish, if you believe Richardson to be telling the truth about being in the yard when he said that he was and you also believe that he was being truthful when he said that he didn’t see the body, why don’t you believe him when he said that he looked into the yard and couldn’t have missed seeing the body had it been there?

I am not saying that he did tell the truth. If he did, he told more than one truth. And they do not jibe.

It is an open matter to me.

here´s another thing to bear in mind. The fewest people like the idea of having sat within a yard of a ripped up murder victim without noticing it. Psychologically, I think Richardson may well in retrospect have convinced himself that there could have been no corpse there - the thought was too unappealing, and he may also have felt slightly ridiculous about missing out. If, that is, he relly sat on those steps!

Once again, we cannot tell either way. And the police allowed for that kind of a mistake - the police, that is, that were there and who knew the exact position of the body and who could sit on the steps and see for themselves.

They opted for Phillips being correct, and they would not have done so if it was an impossible stance.

[Fisherman]

There's no way Richardson would've missed the body.

This, coupled with Cadosch's evidence, puts the TOD later than Dr. Phillips' estimation.

It would be great if things became true when we state them as facts, wouldn´t it, Harry? Read my answer to Herlock; in entails your statement too.

[Sam Flynn]

They opted for Phillips being correct, and they would not have done so if it was an impossible stance.

The words of a doctor can carry a great deal of weight to the layman, whether what he says is likely or not.

[Fisherman]

The words of a doctor can carry a great deal of weight to the layman, whether what he says is likely or not.

Yes, of course - but the reason it is so is because doctors have over the years built up a professional credibility.

And regardless if the police felt that they needed to trust Phillips, they could not have done so if it was impossible for the doctor to be correct. If they felt that the door could not have hidden Chapman from sight, and if they were certain that Richardson was truthful, they would not have opted for Philips´bid. Such a suggestion sounds a lot less credible to me than the one that Richardson could have missed out.

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, of course - but the reason it is so is because doctors have over the years built up a professional credibility.

And regardless if the police felt that they needed to trust Phillips, they could not have done so if it was impossible for the doctor to be correct. If they felt that the door could not have hidden Chapman from sight, and if they were certain that Richardson was truthful, they would not have opted for Philips´bid. Such a suggestion sounds a lot less credible to me than the one that Richardson could have missed out.

Fish,
What do you make of the Echo article I posted, which (to me) suggests the police doubts were over the time of Richardson's visit, not the possibility he missed seeing the body?

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, of course - but the reason it is so is because doctors have over the years built up a professional credibility.

And lay-people trust them because they learn to believe that "doctor knows best". They often do, but that doesn't mean they're invariably correct.

[Harry D]

It would be great if things became true when we state them as facts, wouldn´t it, Harry? Read my answer to Herlock; in entails your statement too.

Doctor's estimates are exactly that - estimates. It shouldn't bear repeating that Victorian efforts were not as sophisticated as modern methods. I find it harder to believe that Richardson missed a corpse than I do that Phillips was an hour or less off with his TOD, particularly as Cadosch heard a woman cry "No" and something bumping against the fence.

[Sam Flynn]

Fish,
What do you make of the Echo article I posted, which (to me) suggests the police doubts were over the time of Richardson's visit, not the possibility he missed seeing the body?

I'll let Fisherman give his own take on that, but mine is as I posted yesterday, namely that there's no way Richardson could have missed the bloody, stretched-out body of a woman with her legs apart and her bowels extruded whilst perched on a step barely two feet away.

[Fisherman]

And lay-people trust them because they learn to believe that "doctor knows best". They often do, but that doesn't mean they're invariably correct.

No occupation is represented solely by people who cannot get things wrong, nor am I saying so. But Chapman was cold to the touch, but for a little warmth left under the intestines (telling us that Phillpis felt subtle temperatures) and rigor was oin line with what should be expected. For Phillips to have been as wrong as he needed to be to fit in the triumvirate Loing/Cadosch/Richardson, he would have need to have been exceptionally wrong, he would have missed out on how the whole body had still warmth (but felt the subtle warmth under the intestines) and rigor would have set in twice as fast as it should have. I just find that utterly incredible, whereas I know that you are willing to freely allow for it.

[Fisherman]

Doctor's estimates are exactly that - estimates. It shouldn't bear repeating that Victorian efforts were not as sophisticated as modern methods. I find it harder to believe that Richardson missed a corpse than I do that Phillips was an hour or less off with his TOD, particularly as Cadosch heard a woman cry "No" and something bumping against the fence.

Cadosh SAID he heard that, but that does not equal that he really did. He was dead certain on the timing, as was Long, but when you compare these two dead certain people, you realize that they are not in sync. They create a backwards scenario, where Chapman first cries out "No!" and falls towards the fence in the backyard, and then gets up, gets out and chats up the gentleman Long sawa her with. Something is seriously wrong with that picture, Harry. When we have to pick and choose, we are at risk to get it wrong.

[Abby Normal]

Exactly Abby, and the Morning Advertiser has him saying just that;

"You must have been quite close to where the woman was found? -She was found lying just where my feet were."

This extract from the Echo is interesting, in that it seems to suggest that the police doubt over his evidence was about the time of his visit to the yard, not whether he failed to spot Annnie's corpse.

Echo 13th Sept
"The police efforts are today being vigorously proceeded with, especially in the direction of settling the question of the exact time at which the murder of Annie Chapman actually occurred. Some doubt was originally thrown by them on the evidence of John Richardson, who stated that he was almost on the exact spot where the body was found at a quarter to five on Saturday morning, and that no signs of the murder were then apparent. Proof is now being sought to establish the fact that Richardson was right as to the time."

thanks for this JR!
with all the other evidence, including cadosh and long, coupled with the vagueness of TOD, im very confident that she was killed 5:30ish.
I think Cadosh may have heard her last words.

That being said, Richardson, and his testimony always struck me as a bit off. Hes there close to it all timewise and lied about the knife thing. Hes someone else like Lech and hutch that need more looking at IMHO.

[Fisherman]

thanks for this JR!
with all the other evidence, including cadosh and long, coupled with the vagueness of TOD, im very confident that she was killed 5:30ish.
I think Cadosh may have heard her last words.

That being said, Richardson, and his testimony always struck me as a bit off. Hes there close to it all timewise and lied about the knife thing. Hes someone else like Lech and hutch that need more looking at IMHO.

People who are killed 5.30 do not turn totally cold in an hour or less, nor do they develop rigor, Abby. "Very confident" is therefore a judgement that may need some afterthought. What is more likely to be vague? Contradicting evidence or the processes of death?

[Jon Guy]

People who are killed 5.30 do not turn totally cold in an hour or less, nor do they develop rigor, Abby. "Very confident" is therefore a judgement that may need some afterthought. What is more likely to be vague? Contradicting evidence or the processes of death?

I have to agree with this
Phillips inspected the body at 6.30am. He would have know if she had been killed within the last hour.

[Abby Normal]

they might if their already sick/weak, their throats cut severely, their midsection ripped open, internal organs taken, and there skirt thrown up on a chilly morning.

not sure the good dr had that experience before and or accounted for it all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree that it's difficult to be certain of anything when dealing with contradicting evidence. We look for likelihood’s. Of all the factors involved in Chapman’s murder the one that I feel the greatest level of confidence in is that no one could have sat on that second step and missed seeing a mutilated corpse. I’d say that it would have taken an effort not to have seen her. To me it appears close to impossible. I would go so far as to say that it would be easier for me to accept that he saw the corpse but lied about it.
I have no medical knowledge, but considering the knowledge available in 1888, with the ‘unusual’ state of the corpse, is it really impossible that Phillips could have been out in his assessment? If it is categorically impossible then Richardson has to have lied or been mistake. If it’s not impossible however then I favour Richardson being correct in saying that Annie wasn’t there at 4.45.