AC and TOD

[Fisherman]

And maybe the Ripper was hiding in the corner behind the door. Ooooh-errrr.

Well, Stephen, technically that would not be impossible. But I think we must accept he was long gone by the time Richardson swung that door open. It sort of goes with the reasoning...
If Phillips was right, then she would have died at the latest around 4.30 and probably earlier than that. If the killer hung around for two hours or more, one would perhaps have expected a bit more damage to Chapmanīs body.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stephen Thomas]

I think it was said that the door closed itself when opened, meaning that it would have crept close up on Richardson as he sat on the steps. And if it leaned against his left shoulder, then perhaps he could have missed Chapman in the gloom?

And maybe the Ripper was hiding in the corner behind the door. Ooooh-errrr.

[Fisherman]

I share your reservations to a large degree, Watson. That being said, I think it was said that the door closed itself when opened, meaning that it would have crept close up on Richardson as he sat on the steps. And if it leaned against his left shoulder, then perhaps he could have missed Chapman in the gloom? One must also take into account that there is nothing saying that he sat at a straight angle to the fence, is there? He was there to check the lock on the door to the right as he opened the yard door. He could well have turned his back on Chapman, more or less, if he focused on that lock.

The main thing here is that it seems that Phillips and the police seemingly reasoned their way through to accepting that Richardson could have been there and missed Chapman. And the police must have asked Richardson many a question about exactly what he did and how he did it. And if the Echo is correct, then in the end, it all led up to the information allowing for Richardson missing out, apparently.

Itīs a tricky call, since we get an outlined scenario to work from when accepting the lineup Richardson-Long-Cadosche. But if the police arrived at the conclusion that Phillips was right on the TOD, then all witnesses and testimony have been weighed in.

The best,
Fisherman

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Wickerman.

It seems as if they were satisfied with it. Maybe Richardson was the oblivious type. The explanation satisfies the doctor's tod timeframe so maybe that was good enough for them? Still reeling. How could he sit there and not notice anything? Apologies.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Find it hard to believe.

If he sat on the steps he would've had to have tried hard to miss the body. I can't just accept that without serious reservations.

[Fisherman]

Some interesting input here, and many differing minds, as could be expected. Myself, I think that the Echo makes it rather clear that they are not writing about events dating around the 12:th and 13:th. Hereīs the snippet again:

""Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy."

So, Phillips have had not "a" consulation, but "another" consultation with the police. Apparently, the first one/s did not result in any agreement about the order of things, but now it has been decided that no matter what Richardson said, the medical evidence points to him having missed the body by having it obstructed from his view by the door. Please note that whilst Chandler did not initially know that Richardson sat down on the steps to cut that piece of leather, it is apparent that this is known by the time the article is written. It says that Richardson must have missed Chapman IN SPITE OF sitting down and cutting his boot.

So were the police satisfied that Chapman was in all probability killed BEFORE Richardson cut away, before Long saw her couple and before Cadosche made his toilet trek that morning? And did they decide on this around the 18:th?

The best,
Fisherman

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Damaso Marte.

Perhaps somebody who would prefer to see the crime spree in their neighborhood solved, and who therefore wants to ensure the police have the most accurate information they can get?

At possibly their own expense? Gallows potentially looming. Show me a person who would claim that and I'll show you a liar 9 out of 10 times. Sounds closer to stupidity. Whatever the motivation, what could be gained by the admission of having a knife there? All he need do is say, 'No, the body was not there. I looked at the very spot.' Or, 'I walked there.' I guess I'm just pessimistic this night. Only this one. Heh ha.

[Damaso Marte]

Who admits to being in a spot with a knife where a body is when they weren't? Seems insane.

Perhaps somebody who would prefer to see the crime spree in their neighborhood solved, and who therefore wants to ensure the police have the most accurate information they can get?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

Yes but if taken purely literally Mrs Longs and Cadosches evidence ARE mutually contradictory...you can only make them work if one of them (or both) are out timewise...

I guess what makes me more and more veer this way with Chapman (and the opposite way with Stride) is the medical evidence...roughly two hours (before 6.30am) for rigor to start setting in - and that time period probably extended by the cold conditions...

I wonder if (in the light of various discoveries....Debs re Richardson and Colin re Cadosche) maybe we have the worlds worst trio of witnesses in Long, Cadosche and Richardson...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon



Well one could argue (and others have before) that Cadosche was preoccupied and not paying that much attention. He wasn't even sure where the "No" he heard came from...

Similarly Mrs Long was either completely wrong about the time or completely wrong about the couple she saw...She admits she often saw folk about on her morning journeys so didn't pay them any attention...this is a woman she doesn't know, and catches a fleeting glimpse of on the way to work, and she can go into a mortuary and identify her later?

FWIW I've argued these three (including Richardson) both ways on here, as I tend to do to help me mentally sift the wheat from the chaff, and the more I do, the more sceptical of these two I become...I can't dismiss them, but especially bearing in mind the medical testimony I hae me doots - I seem to recall there was a very good dissertation on this...will have to check

All the best

Dave

Indeed Dave.
Which only goes to show we can take a witness statement in isolation and suggest the cause of a fault, but even assuming all three witnesses were wrong, it is strange how none of their claims are in direct conflict with each other.

On the other hand, Dr. Phillips in this case declared his uncertainty quite openly.

The natural inclination of the police is to side with the evidence given by a professional, but in this case they were confounded by the certainty of the amateur & the uncertainty of the professional.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

Richardson's testimony is not taken in isolation though, along with it, and not in contention with it, is that of Cadosch & Mrs Long.

The conclusion of Dr Phillips is in contention with all three.

Well one could argue (and others have before) that Cadosche was preoccupied and not paying that much attention. He wasn't even sure where the "No" he heard came from...

Similarly Mrs Long was either completely wrong about the time or completely wrong about the couple she saw...She admits she often saw folk about on her morning journeys so didn't pay them any attention...this is a woman she doesn't know, and catches a fleeting glimpse of on the way to work, and she can go into a mortuary and identify her later?

FWIW I've argued these three (including Richardson) both ways on here, as I tend to do to help me mentally sift the wheat from the chaff, and the more I do, the more sceptical of these two I become...I can't dismiss them, but especially bearing in mind the medical testimony I hae me doots - I seem to recall there was a very good dissertation on this...will have to check

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Then why mention it all? Unless the boot cutting WAS true and he was worried about someone who had seen him telling the bobbies? I'm hard pressed at the moment to think of anything else that isn't fanciful so to speak. And if true he couldn't have missed the body.

It doesn't make sense to introduce an element that makes you the focus of attention, unless that element just happens to be true.

At the time Richardson gave his testimony, neither Chandler nor Phillips had given theirs.

Richardson's testimony is not taken in isolation though, along with it, and not in contention with it, is that of Cadosch & Mrs Long.

The conclusion of Dr Phillips is in contention with all three.

[Cogidubnus]

Curious

Oh yes Dig...in a way it's what keeps us all here!

Dave

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo all.

Anyone else ever notice how nothing ever makes any sense about anything to do with this case?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Wickerman.

Swanson makes a point of the fact Richardson was intensely questioned, and rightly so. The police would much rather proceed with the evidence given by Dr Phillips, but as Richardson appeared to be unwavering then they were stuck.

If Richardson did check the cellar entrance every morning, then we can't expect him to take an inventory of the yard, he just opened the door a crack & glanced to his right. Perhaps missing the body at his left?

He might have been wary of mentioning the fact to Chandler that he was in possession of a knife in a yard where a body has just been found, so chose not to mention it at first?

Then why mention it all? Unless the boot cutting WAS true and he was worried about someone who had seen him telling the bobbies? I'm hard pressed at the moment to think of anything else that isn't fanciful so to speak. And if true he couldn't have missed the body.