John Richardson sitting on the step

[Michael W Richards]

Hello RockyIs that confirmed?We still have to account for the woman's voice exclaiming "No!" moments before the thud.

Yeah, Like Sam said.

[Rosella]

A dustman (garbage collector) apparently reported after Annie was found that he had seen a bloodstained male walking down Hanbury St early that morning, so maybe Jack didn't, or maybe he just used a few splashes of the water from the nearby tap to scrub his hands with a piece of cloth he may have had with him for souvenirs.

[RockySullivan]

Rocky, could you please tell me where you got the info that Chapman knew Richardson, as I would be interested to know? It might point to why Annie was quite OK about using the back yard at no. 29 when it was getting towards daylight.

We really don't know what that last 'No' was about, as Albert went back inside for a few minutes. It could have been a conversation about whether they could be overseen or the client asking Annie if she had change for a threepenny bit, for all we know!

With regard to Dr Phillip's estimation of the time of Annie's demise, there's been quite a conversation going on on the JTRF about Victorian doctors' observations as well as here on Facebook. I'm not sure whether Trevor Marriott has posted these on Facebook, but in the unlikely event that he hasn't I'm quoting here what a modern day forensic pathologist wrote in answer to his questions on this subject.

'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' and 'In fact the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn't even attempt to estimate the postmortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn't estimate a time since death to within a few hours.'

So much for all those Christie novels etc where the police surgeon pronounces almost down to the hour!

I dont trust doctors...witnesses are less reliable...but something is very off about Richardson. I'm not saying philips was right...but Richardson lied a number of times and I don't trust his account. I will have to look for the statement but Mrs. Richardson was asked if she knew chapman and she said yes she knew dark annie..I think Chapman did some work at 29 hanbury or sold something there?

What about the clean water? Wouldn't the ripper have bloody hands? Why wouldn't he wash in the water? I don't see any reason why he wouldnt take advantage of clean pale of water.

[Rosella]

Rocky, could you please tell me where you got the info that Chapman knew Richardson, as I would be interested to know? It might point to why Annie was quite OK about using the back yard at no. 29 when it was getting towards daylight.

We really don't know what that last 'No' was about, as Albert went back inside for a few minutes. It could have been a conversation about whether they could be overseen or the client asking Annie if she had change for a threepenny bit, for all we know!

With regard to Dr Phillip's estimation of the time of Annie's demise, there's been quite a conversation going on on the JTRF about Victorian doctors' observations as well as here on Facebook. I'm not sure whether Trevor Marriott has posted these on Facebook, but in the unlikely event that he hasn't I'm quoting here what a modern day forensic pathologist wrote in answer to his questions on this subject.

'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' and 'In fact the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn't even attempt to estimate the postmortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn't estimate a time since death to within a few hours.'

So much for all those Christie novels etc where the police surgeon pronounces almost down to the hour!

[Sam Flynn]

After all it wasn't a bloody murder scream

The simplicity of a mere "No!" might suggest a certain sad realisation of one's impending demise, though, Rocky. I still think it likely that it was Chapman's last pathetic whimper that Cadoche heard.

[RockySullivan]

Hello RockyIs that confirmed?We still have to account for the woman's voice exclaiming "No!" moments before the thud.

Yes chapman was known to the richardsons. The certainly sound like a murder but in reality it could have mrs Richardson. After all it wasn't a bloody murder scream

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Rocky

Chapman knew Richardson.

Is that confirmed?

Is it possible the thud was the moving of the body?

We still have to account for the woman's voice exclaiming "No!" moments before the thud.

[RockySullivan]

Hi Michael richards, I think cadosh heard what he heard but not convinced it had to be chapman or long. First off I would go with Phillips as the most reliable. Now would the ripper have had blood on his hands? If so why would he not wash in the clean water sitting out in the yard? I think Phillips tod is more realistic...it's much less likely the ripper would be interrupted earlier and quite risky for him to choose such a late attack time. Chapman knew Richardson. Is it possible the thud was the moving of the body?

[Michael W Richards]

To do the contrary is to dismiss the testimony of three independent witnesses, whose stories are all - without exception - compatible with the later time of death.

Why is it in these cases that many people are willing to question very reasonable statements made by people who clearly had the proximity and time exposure to enable a sound observance Sam? Ive always wondered why people choose to believe Mrs Long over Cadosche for example...because clearly his statement is the only one worth any salt. He was there at the site, he had the proximity, he heard a female voice and a thud....and he heard them at 5:15am. That statement places a woman in that yard by the fence at 5:15am. Its obvious the event Cadosche heard wasn't happening while standing over a gutted dying woman, obvious as well that the couple would have fled that yard screaming if that body had been seen there when they arrived.

Richardsons statement fits very well with the Cadosche statement, which negates the Long sighting, and provides us with a murder time between 5:15am and 5:30am. An approximate murder time is right there....clearly, affirmed by reasonable statements by reasonable people.

Which suggests that her killer did everything he did to her and fled before Davis came downstairs.

Which also suggests that the proclamation of killer knife skill and some anatomical knowledge is sound based on that short time period.

Cheers Sam

[RockySullivan]

Hi Rocky,
Richardson wouldn't need to come up with a story if someone later told the police that they had seen him with a knife and a woman in the yard. He would have just simply denied it and stated that he had checked his mother's cellar and then gone off to be ready for work at the market.

It would have been one person's word against another. It would only have been serious if someone had looked out of their window and commented to another person at the time (a back-up witness) as to what they saw, or if they had gone to the police with their story at the time the body was found, that Richardson would have been in strife.

I think you're inclined to believe that no-one becomes muddled in their account or frightened in the middle of a murder enquiry, that people, even when they've had little to do with the police, always come up with their story first time and don't deviate from it. That just isn't so. Richardson seems to have been a person of good character and the police believed his account of his movements.

Phillips intimated that he may have made a mistake in his first estimate of time of death in that it was a cool morning and so the body cooled more rapidly. If the murder occurred after 4:55am then Richardson wouldn't have seen anything because there was nothing to see.

I'm not so sure Richardson was a person of good character...for instance the story of the man who accosted him where he Richardson claims the man is the ripper. In fact he seems like quite a looney tune from that account.

If someone spotted Richardson with a knife out he wouldn't be off the hook just because he denied it, or two could have seen him. He didn't know who had seen him. And why was the water untouched?

[Sam Flynn]

And in order to accept the later murder time one was dismiss the expert opinion of the Doctor Phillips...

To do the contrary is to dismiss the testimony of three independent witnesses, whose stories are all - without exception - compatible with the later time of death.

[Rosella]

Hi Rocky,
Richardson wouldn't need to come up with a story if someone later told the police that they had seen him with a knife and a woman in the yard. He would have just simply denied it and stated that he had checked his mother's cellar and then gone off to be ready for work at the market.

It would have been one person's word against another. It would only have been serious if someone had looked out of their window and commented to another person at the time (a back-up witness) as to what they saw, or if they had gone to the police with their story at the time the body was found, that Richardson would have been in strife.

I think you're inclined to believe that no-one becomes muddled in their account or frightened in the middle of a murder enquiry, that people, even when they've had little to do with the police, always come up with their story first time and don't deviate from it. That just isn't so. Richardson seems to have been a person of good character and the police believed his account of his movements.

Phillips intimated that he may have made a mistake in his first estimate of time of death in that it was a cool morning and so the body cooled more rapidly. If the murder occurred after 4:55am then Richardson wouldn't have seen anything because there was nothing to see.

[RockySullivan]

Deimschutz may have had a knife in his possession when he discovered Liz, so might Paul and Cross when they came across Polly's body. Just because people are associated with a crime scene before, during or after a body has been discovered doesn't mean they're murderers, whether they have knives on them or not.

The difference with Richardson is that Annie was found in the back yard of where his mother was living, and that he reported at Annie's inquest, of his own accord unprompted by others, that he was cutting his boot with a knife near where a body was found. It would be a very stupid Ripper (or murderer of any kind) to behave in the way Richardson said he did. And stating that he only spoke about his knife because others might have been looking out of windows at the time and seen him doesn't wash as no other person came forward.

Yes, Dr Phillips was a very experienced and competent police surgeon. Even today, however, estimating the time of death is a very inexact science and I doubt that it could be narrowed to an hour or so of a person's demise unless there was other evidence.

Hi Rosella

Just because no one came forward as seeing Richardson from their window doesn't mean Richardson wasn't worried someone might've. He didn't know if someone would come forward later and if someone said they saw Richardson on the ground with a knife in his hand he already had a story. And remember this wasn't Richardson's first version of the story, in the first version there was no sitting on the steps or cobbling. So he may have become worried and come up with this as a preemptive defensive.

Deimschutz, Cross or Paul may have had a knife on them, but they did not have a knife (the murder weapon) out in their hand nor were they cutting something on the ground where the murder occured. If when Paul walked up to Cross was hunched over in the middle of the street and he had his knife out in hand and then said he was fixing his boot and hadnt even seen the body right next to him...would you view him suspiciously? What if it took him multiple stories to come up with that version?

[Rosella]

Deimschutz may have had a knife in his possession when he discovered Liz, so might Paul and Cross when they came across Polly's body. Just because people are associated with a crime scene before, during or after a body has been discovered doesn't mean they're murderers, whether they have knives on them or not.

The difference with Richardson is that Annie was found in the back yard of where his mother was living, and that he reported at Annie's inquest, of his own accord unprompted by others, that he was cutting his boot with a knife near where a body was found. It would be a very stupid Ripper (or murderer of any kind) to behave in the way Richardson said he did. And stating that he only spoke about his knife because others might have been looking out of windows at the time and seen him doesn't wash as no other person came forward.

Yes, Dr Phillips was a very experienced and competent police surgeon. Even today, however, estimating the time of death is a very inexact science and I doubt that it could be narrowed to an hour or so of a person's demise unless there was other evidence.

[RockySullivan]

Don't forget the leather apron and how mrs R makes not at the inquest of the untouched pale of water. Now if the ripper had blood on him why wouldn't he take advantage of a bucket of water to wash his hands? Doesn't make sense. I suspect the water was changed and fresh water was put out.