Denial, Desperation and Dishonesty - Defending Stephen Knight’s Nonsense

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

Based on the evidence there is just as much likelihood that Chapman was there

Rubbish.

All that you have is Phillips.

And we all know about the accuracy of TOD estimations don’t we Fishy?

Richardson had eyes and he wasn’t a drooling imbecile.

It was quite within his capabilities to view a yard and make a judgment on whether there was a dismembered corpse there or not.

Cadosch adds weight to the suggestion that she was killed around 5.25.

No coach and horses were seen

No men carrying a corpse.

No Sickert

No Netley

No Gull.

Try another approach to shoehorning Knight into place because this one has failed.

[FISHY1118]

Therefore the overwhelming likelihood is that Chapman wasn’t there at 4.45

.

Based on the evidence there is just as much likelihood that Chapman was there

[Herlock Sholmes]

. As I have continued to say all the witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on, so your use of the term equivocally is accepting it without question

Richardson was unequivocal though Trevor. He had absolutely no doubt that he could see the whole yard and that Annie wasn’t there.

I only used the word in connection with Richardson’s level of confidence that he wasn’t mistaken.

. i think Phillips estimated time of death is more than 1 hours difference

He said around 2 hours and he arrived at 6.20. That means around 4.20. I’d say that the likelihood was that Annie was killed around 5.25. I won’t quibble Trevor. It might have been a little over an hour.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

Or its just as possible this is CORRECT based on the evidence of course.

Far less likely for two obvious reasons Fishy.

1. The normal position to have sat would have been looking straight ahead and so the likelihood is that the door would have been open 90+ degrees which meant that he’d have seen the body.

and I don’t know why you both appear allergic to this fact..

2. Richardson said that he could see the whole of the yard and that he couldn’t have missed the body if it had been there.

Therefore the overwhelming likelihood is that Chapman wasn’t there at 4.45.

[Trevor Marriott]

But he stated unequivocally that he could see the entire yard and that it would have been impossible to have missed the body. He would have realised if a sizeable part of the yard was hidden by a partially opened door. If he sat on the step facing straight out, which is the natural position, then the door would have been at 90+ degrees. There was also a huge gap beneath the door. Also, when someone opens a door with the intention of stepping through it they usually hold it wider open.

So when we weigh it up I’d say that the chances of Richardson not seeing a body if it was there would have been minute to non-existent. Add that to the fact that Richardson had no reason to lie; indeed it was madness to voluntarily place himself in a yard with a corpse whilst carrying a knife, and id say that it was overwhelmingly likely that Richardson was correct and that Annie wasn’t there at 4.45.


When we then add the certain fact that her body was found at 6.00 by Davis then I’d say that we were on pretty safe ground to say that she was killed between 4.50 and 5.50. Then we have the testimony of Cadosch. He was honest enough to admit that the he couldn’t have been certain that the no came from number 29. He was more certain about the noise against the fence though. He also had no reason to lie (obviously this doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have lied of course.) But the noise of something or someone falling against the fence is rather too coincidental to dismiss out of hand. A very likely pointer that the killer struck around 5.25. Nothing of any weight negates this view. Phillips was around an hour out in his TOD estimate. Hardly a shocker considering what we know about available medical knowledge.

If this is the case the Long was likely to have been mistaken unless Cadosch got his timing wrong.



You can say that again!

As I have continued to say all the witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on, so your use of the term equivocally is accepting it without question

i think Phillips estimated time of death is more than 1 hours difference

https://www.trevormarriott

[FISHY1118]

Based on the evidence, it is possible that Richardson did genuinely not see Chapmans body. If he sat on the top step, and the door was not fully pushed back, the door might have blocked his view of where Chapmans body was laying. He stated he was more concerned with the lock on the cellar door, so he would have been looking to his right and not to his left and looking down to cut the leather from his boot

.

Or its just as possible this is CORRECT based on the evidence of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have to look at all aspects of the evidence and analyze the facts.

As I keep stating the witness testimony of witnesses throughout the whole ripper mystery is unsafe and should be treated with caution and not readily accepted as being true. Researchers seem to want to believe which witness they want to believe whose testimony fits in with their own theory.

There were many ambiguities in witness testimony at the inquests which were never clarified, add to that all the follow ons from the newspaper reports setting out the witness testimony, and any add ons from them that may or may not have been accurate.

Based on the evidence, it is possible that Richardson did genuinely not see Chapmans body. If he sat on the top step, and the door was not fully pushed back, the door might have blocked his view of where Chapmans body was laying. He stated he was more concerned with the lock on the cellar door, so he would have been looking to his right and not to his left and looking down to cut the leather from his boot.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But he stated unequivocally that he could see the entire yard and that it would have been impossible to have missed the body. He would have realised if a sizeable part of the yard was hidden by a partially opened door. If he sat on the step facing straight out, which is the natural position, then the door would have been at 90+ degrees. There was also a huge gap beneath the door. Also, when someone opens a door with the intention of stepping through it they usually hold it wider open.

So when we weigh it up I’d say that the chances of Richardson not seeing a body if it was there would have been minute to non-existent. Add that to the fact that Richardson had no reason to lie; indeed it was madness to voluntarily place himself in a yard with a corpse whilst carrying a knife, and id say that it was overwhelmingly likely that Richardson was correct and that Annie wasn’t there at 4.45.


When we then add the certain fact that her body was found at 6.00 by Davis then I’d say that we were on pretty safe ground to say that she was killed between 4.50 and 5.50. Then we have the testimony of Cadosch. He was honest enough to admit that the he couldn’t have been certain that the no came from number 29. He was more certain about the noise against the fence though. He also had no reason to lie (obviously this doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have lied of course.) But the noise of something or someone falling against the fence is rather too coincidental to dismiss out of hand. A very likely pointer that the killer struck around 5.25. Nothing of any weight negates this view. Phillips was around an hour out in his TOD estimate. Hardly a shocker considering what we know about available medical knowledge.

If this is the case the Long was likely to have been mistaken unless Cadosch got his timing wrong.

Researchers seem to want to believe which witness they want to believe whose testimony fits in with their own theory.

You can say that again!

[FISHY1118]

[Trevor Marriott]

That’s hardly surprising. But as even you say....unlikely.

Talking of likelihood let’s compare....

Phillips makes a TOD estimate - we know from experts that TOD estimations were very unreliable so we’re not questioning the Doctor’s integrity or even his competence. He was competent within the parameters of forensic medical knowledge at the time.

Richardson says that the yard was empty at 4.45 - we have to ask what reason would Richardson have to have lied and why would he tell such an insane lie that put him alone at the crime scene. And to make matters worse....with a knife! The odds are massively against this. Yes he appears to have altered his story but can we assume something sinister from this? Of course if we use the conspiracy theorist approach we can but let’s avoid that here. We have Richardson, normal working class man, probably with the usual reticence when it comes to getting involved with the police. It’s a reasonable suggestion that he initially didn’t mention that he had sat on the step to mend his shoe because that would have put a knife into his hand at a crime scene. Then when it was established that he could have checked the cellar doors (the reason for his visit in the first place) by simply opening the door and looking to his right (which might have caused him to have missed the body) , he had to tell the police that he’d actually sat on the step and so could have seen all of the yard.

We have Richardson unequivocally stating that he could see the entire yard from the step. He also stated that he later saw the body in situ and so he knew exactly were it was, exactly what position it was in and exactly how much floor space it would have taken up.

Therefore to dismiss Richardson we have to suggest that for some inexplicable reason he intentionally lied, without any need to, about being in a yard with a knife where a mutilated woman was discovered around an hour and a quarter later. Is this likely? I’d suggest that it’s unlikely in the extreme.

Now compare that unlikeliness with the suggestion that Dr Phillip’s made an entirely understandably mistaken TOD estimate. Given the knowledge of the time this is entirely possible and requires no accusation of dishonesty or incompetence on Phillips part.

Richardson is more likely to have been correct than Phillip’s. Or less likely to have been mistaken.

If Phillip’s was correct then Richardson was a liar who, without any reason or compulsion, placed himself alone with a knife in a yard with a mutilated corpse. Can anyone seriously believe that? How many unbelievable things do we have to believe to make that mythical coach and horses appear with the evil Sir William waiting with his big knife.

We have to look at all aspects of the evidence and analyze the facts.

As I keep stating the witness testimony of witnesses throughout the whole ripper mystery is unsafe and should be treated with caution and not readily accepted as being true. Researchers seem to want to believe which witness they want to believe whose testimony fits in with their own theory.

There were many ambiguities in witness testimony at the inquests which were never clarified, add to that all the follow ons from the newspaper reports setting out the witness testimony, and any add ons from them that may or may not have been accurate.

Based on the evidence, it is possible that Richardson did genuinely not see Chapmans body. If he sat on the top step, and the door was not fully pushed back, the door might have blocked his view of where Chapmans body was laying. He stated he was more concerned with the lock on the cellar door, so he would have been looking to his right and not to his left and looking down to cut the leather from his boot.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Thank- you Simon ..

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fishy,

Echo, 19th September 1888—

“Passing through Spitalfields with John Richardson, a curious incident occurred. A rough, demented-looking fellow came from a group, grinning, and, with clenched fist, muttered some threat to John Richardson.

“In answer to the question ‘Who is he? What does he mean?’ Richardson then replied: ‘That is a man who they say is mad. A great many of the women and people round our house think that he is the most likely man that they know of to commit a murder. In fact, many of them say that he is the real Leather Apron.’ When asked to go back to inquire what the man meant, Richardson said, ‘You had better not, for he would be most likely to spring upon you and knock you down at once, without a word. I shall not stop to speak to him, for he is very dangerous; and a great many of the women think that he is the murderer.”

Regards,

Simon

[FISHY1118]

Because Fishy wants it earlier and dark so that there would be fewer people around to see two men carrying a mutilated corpse from coach and horses into the backyard of Hanbury Street.

Which makes it possible . NOT impossible....

[FISHY1118]

Herlock, its clear you didn't understand properly about richardson , so ill keep posting for you.
John Richardson

" Considerable doubt is being thrown 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"


- The Star
13 September, 1888


John Richardson, a market porter, was described as a tall, stout man, with a very pale face, a brown moustache, and dark brown hair. He was shabbily dressed in a ragged coat, and dark brown trousers. He explained that there had been a robbery of the cellar at number 29 Hanbury Street and some tools (two saws and two hammers) had been stolen. The door to the cellar was in the back yard where Richardson's mother operated a packing case business. He stated that after the robbery it was his habit on market days to go around to Hanbury and check to see if the padlock was still secure. On non-market days, apparently, he just didn't bother. This was his reason, therefore, for entering the back yard of number 29 at between 4:45 and 4:50 a.m. He said that there was no body in the yard at that time. Indeed, he claims to have sat down on the second step in order to cut a piece of leather from off his boot and would have been sure to have seen a body lying splayed out in front of him and only inches away from his foot. But we are getting ahead of our selves here.

Inspector Joseph Chandler was the first policeman on the scene when he was informed of the murder at 6:10 a.m. He interviewed John Richardson at about 6:45 that morning and was told "he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

The Coroner: Did he say anything about cutting his boot?

Chandler "No." ¹⁸

The Foreman of the jury then made the point that it was possible that the back door, which opened outwards into the yard and towards where the body was lying, obscured the body from view to one just standing at the top of the stairs. If, however, Richardson had gone down into the yard he was bound to see it. Chandler could only reiterate his earlier testimony and answer that Richardson had told him that"he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot." ¹⁹

What Chandler was led to believe was that Richardson's visit was quick and cursory, that he merely opened the backdoor and took a brief glance down to his right as he stood at the top of the steps and saw that the lock was still on the cellar door and then went off to work. If this first story was true then it is doubtful that Richardson would have noticed the body of Annie Chapman lying in the yard to his left. By the 10th of September, however, Richardson seems to have changed his story and it was reported that "Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot." ²⁰ This second story was repeated to the coroner when the market porter testified at the inquest two days later on the 12th.

"I went to 29, Hanbury street, between 4.45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in....

The Coroner: Did you go into the yard?

Richardson: No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door." ²¹

Which of the two versions was correct? Which version is to be trusted? Most writers on the subject simply ignore the discrepancies. Those who have at least pointed them out usually blame Chandler for some ineptitude or dereliction of duty. Author Philip Sugden, for example, believes that Chandler simply misunderstood what Richardson was saying. He points out that Chandler did not thoroughly question Richardson on the day of the murder and, according to the inspector's movements, could only have spent a few minutes talking to him so that the inspector's understanding of Richardson's evidence was "erroneous." This would presuppose that Chandler could not understand the importance of Richardson's story or that he was in too much of a hurry to get to the mortuary to really care. Surely another interpretation is that Chandler spent only a little time talking to him because he simply saw nothing of importance in Richardson's testimony. It is perhaps significant to note that it was apparently unnecessary to actually go into the yard in order to see the lock on the cellar door. The coroner asked John's mother, Amelia Richardson, if she understood that her son actually went down to the cellar door to check the lock. Her response was "No, he can see from the steps." ²² This would seem to suggest that a quick glance from the top of the stairs was all that was needed and explain why the story of Richardson's cobblery was added. He had no reason to actually go into the yard.

There is another piece of evidence, however, that seems to support Chandler's version of Richardson's story or at least shows that Richardson didn't tell the story of sitting down on the steps until some days later. The Star on the 8th of September reported "at a quarter to five the body was not in the yard, Mrs. Richardson's son John, a man of 33, having passed through the yard at that time to see if the cellar door was safe." In the same newspaper John Richardson was interviewed and stated "This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure."

On the day of the murder, therefore, John Richardson made no mention of sitting down on the steps and cutting a piece of leather from his shoe. This is virtually the same story that he told Chandler and thus some doubt is thrown on Richardson's later version of events. There is even more damning evidence which goes against Richardson's story.

The fact that Richardson stated that he had been in the yard where a murder had been committed, and that he had with him a knife, was a significant admission not lost on the coroner. He questioned the porter about the knife and finally ordered him to go and get it, which Richardson did accompanied by a constable. He returned and was recalled to the witness stand. The knife he produced was a rusty and blunt little dessert or table knife with half the blade broken off and no handle. The coroner, who examined the blade, wondered how such an implement could be used to cut boot leather and Richardson amazingly stated "as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market" ²³ to do the job.

This is a not insignificant change to his story. What he had been saying unequivocally up until this point was that he had "sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot." ²⁴ He even went into some detail about his actions stating "after cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market." ²⁵ He stated quite clearly on more than one occasion that he had cut the leather from his boot. He even added a wholly unnecessary comment that he tied his boot up, but nowhere had he mention that in fact he had been unsuccessful in cutting the offending leather. Remember, this is the only reason that Richardson was deemed an important witness - his claim that he sat down on the steps and cut a piece of leather from his shoe - and now he had changed his story.

Sugden states that Richardson was "the crucial witness" and that he "had nothing to hide" and "he stated his evidence clearly and unequivocally" ²⁶ which is not all together true. Richardson seems to have changed his story more than once so he was hardly "unequivocal." As for having nothing to hide, this is true insofar as he was probably (though who really can say) not actually involved in the murder. He does certainly seem to go from one story of very little import to another where he becomes "the crucial witness." He wouldn't be the first person who perjured themselves in order to appear more important than they actually were and he did become important. He has certainly become the witness relied upon to discredit Dr. Phillips. It is safe to say that, without John Richardson's chaffing boot, Phillips' estimate of the time of death would destroy Mrs. Long's dubious eyewitness and Cadosch's earwitness testimonies, thus placing the murder sometime between 2:00 and 4:30 a.m..

In the end it was Coroner Baxter who decided to believe the three witnesses over the testimony of two professional men, Dr. Phillips and Inspector Chandler. It is thus Baxter's opinion, and it must be remembered that he was a lawyer not a medical man, that has seduced most writers on the case. This belief, however, was not shared by the police who were actively investigating the murders.

The Police View: Dr. Phillips

" doubtful evidence points to some thing between 5:30 and 6: - but medical evidence says about 4 o'cl."


Home Office Files²⁷

[Simon Wood]

The Manchester Guardian, 10th September 1888, offered the most sublime explanation for the presence of blood marks in the passage of 29 Hanbury Street—

“There were some marks of blood observable in the passage, but it is now known that these were caused during the work of removal of some packing cases, the edges of which accidentally came in contact with the blood upon the spot from which the unhappy victim was removed."

And pigs might fly.

Inspector Chandler [Chapman inquest]: "The blood-stains at No. 29 were in the immediate neighbourhood of the body only. There were also a few spots of blood on the back wall, near the head of the deceased, 2ft from the ground. The largest spot was of the size of a sixpence. They were all close together."

Bagster Phillips [Chapman inquest]: "On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the palings, on the left side, about 18in from the ground, there were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point, and on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid, and immediately above the part where the blood had mainly flowed from the neck, which was well clotted."

[Simon Wood]

Hi Aperno,

Not everyone agrees.

Evening News, 8th September 1888—

“The supposition finds ready acceptance that the poor woman was murdered outside and taken into this yard, by those who knew the place well. This is upheld by the fact that spots of blood are lying thick in the narrow passage leading from the street into the yard, and the blood marks where the body was found must have been caused by its being deposited there, there being no signs of any struggle having taken place in the vicinity.”

Regards,

Simon