Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richardson's View

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

  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Fisherman,

    I'm sorry you've had to make your point twenty times.

    Perhaps this is because nobody buys into it.

    Like Galilei, you mean?

    At 4.50 am Richardson did not see the body. What remains a mystery is whether the body was there or not there at this time.

    Stay safe.

    Simon
    Yes, that is the exact question we should ask ourselves. And we should allow for both answers, not least after having listened to Phillips. If he rules anything out, it is her not having been there.

    You take care too, Simon!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
      Part Two.

      Okay. As you no doubt know, back in the 1950s and 1960s, Dan Farson, as well as Tom Cullen, interviewed quite a few old-timers living in the East End.

      People are naturally skeptical about oral history, but we can confirm that some of these people did indeed live in Whitechapel or Spitalfields—Mrs. Boufield’s son, for instance.

      Anyway, Farson located one old bloke who claimed to have been in Hanbury Street that morning, evidently chasing Kent and Green and Davis back to the house, or very shortly thereafter.

      Here’s what Farson reported:

      “I met a charming old man who, as a boy at the time, was driving through Hanbury Street at dawn, perched on the back of a cart. Hearing the cry of ‘Murder!’ his curiosity got the better of him and he jumped off to find out what happened, losing his job in consequences.”

      “’There she was,’ he told me in a soft and gentle voice. ‘And her entrails were steamin’ ‘ot. And I’ll never forget it because she had red-and-white stockings on.’” (Farson, 2nd edition, p. 26)

      Now, most people will dismiss this story out of hand, but having seen entrails steaming in ‘real life,’ it has the ring of truth to me.

      They DO steam.

      The strange detail about Chapman’s red-and-white stocking could be pure horse droppings, of course, but the contemporary sketches, strange to say, show Chapman wearing striped socks—a type that are often red-and-white---and the inquest describes them as striped.

      Could this old codger have remembered such a banal detail for seventy years, unless he had been there?

      Maybe, I don’t know, but that’s why I say that the color of Chapman’s socks will tell me her time of death. If they were indeed red-and-white, I’ll give the geezer the benefit of the doubt, which means the entrails were steaming, and she couldn’t have been dead for more than five or six minutes when Davis started hollering murder!

      Accept it or not!
      Not, then.

      Really, if there was only a faint remainder of warmth under Chapmans intestines as per Phillips, I donīt see that her entrails would fairly simultaneously have been steaming.

      That, however, does not mean that I donīt like the story!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        In daylight. With the door fully opened, presumably. And, of course, looking down to his left.

        But what happens, Simon, when we replace that with gloom, with a possibly only partially opened door and Richardson looking to his right?

        What is proven by Davis is that he saw the body under the conditions HE used. Nothing else.

        I think it may well have been the twentieth time I pointed this out on this thread only...!
        Even in the morning at 4:50 it is not dark enough. At that time I can see my shed a good 30+ft away at the end of my garden. You're flogging a dead horse Christer. It was plenty light enough to see a body beside the steps, had it been there.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • [Coroner] Was it light?

          [John Richardson] It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Why was there a likelihood of being disturbed? The killer would have been led there by the victim so she would in all likelihood have reassured him that this was a safe spot that she’d used before.
            Perhaps at a much earlier time than 5am

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Pre-British Summer Time, the light would have been what we have at 5:45am in the morning today. I was awake at that time this morning and made a point of observing the light outside. It was clear so it was at the brightest it could be. It would've been light enough to see something by the fence in the same way it was light enough for Richardson to see what he was doing as he cut his boot leather. If there was any cloud cover then the light would've obviously been reduced but not to the point of darkness.

              That time in September is in magic hour territory so the light would've been fairly even across the whole yard. The only thing that would cast any dark shadows during that time would be objects in line with anything casting artificial light - gas lamp, candle light, torch.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                Part Two.

                Okay. As you no doubt know, back in the 1950s and 1960s, Dan Farson, as well as Tom Cullen, interviewed quite a few old-timers living in the East End.

                People are naturally skeptical about oral history, but we can confirm that some of these people did indeed live in Whitechapel or Spitalfields—Mrs. Boufield’s son, for instance.

                Anyway, Farson located one old bloke who claimed to have been in Hanbury Street that morning, evidently chasing Kent and Green and Davis back to the house, or very shortly thereafter.

                Here’s what Farson reported:

                “I met a charming old man who, as a boy at the time, was driving through Hanbury Street at dawn, perched on the back of a cart. Hearing the cry of ‘Murder!’ his curiosity got the better of him and he jumped off to find out what happened, losing his job in consequences.”

                “’There she was,’ he told me in a soft and gentle voice. ‘And her entrails were steamin’ ‘ot. And I’ll never forget it because she had red-and-white stockings on.’” (Farson, 2nd edition, p. 26)

                Now, most people will dismiss this story out of hand, but having seen entrails steaming in ‘real life,’ it has the ring of truth to me.

                They DO steam.

                The strange detail about Chapman’s red-and-white stocking could be pure horse droppings, of course, but the contemporary sketches, strange to say, show Chapman wearing striped socks—a type that are often red-and-white---and the inquest describes them as striped.

                Could this old codger have remembered such a banal detail for seventy years, unless he had been there?

                Maybe, I don’t know, but that’s why I say that the color of Chapman’s socks will tell me her time of death. If they were indeed red-and-white, I’ll give the geezer the benefit of the doubt, which means the entrails were steaming, and she couldn’t have been dead for more than five or six minutes when Davis started hollering murder!

                Accept it or not!
                great story and i accept it. makes perfect sense.
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  Even in the morning at 4:50 it is not dark enough. At that time I can see my shed a good 30+ft away at the end of my garden. You're flogging a dead horse Christer. It was plenty light enough to see a body beside the steps, had it been there.
                  An extract from Insp Chandlers inquest testimony

                  "I at once went with him to 29, Hanbury-street, and through the passage into the yard. There was no one in the yard. I saw the body of a woman lying on the ground on her back. Her head was towards the back wall of the house, nearly two feet from the wall, at the bottom of the steps, but six or nine inches away from them"

                  . The body was lying parallel with the fencing dividing the two yards.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • He must have had quite a stiff neck,looking always to the right.The higher the bottom of the door from the floor,the more space is going to be revealed,and the bottom of the door at 29 was sufficently high enough to see almost to the fence.That is to a person bent down tying the lace of his boot,but I suppose there are posters here ready to argue he tied while sitting upright,with head turned to the right.Was it the left or right boot?
                    Interesting Trevor ,that Chandler says her head was two foot from the wall at the back of the house.Must have put most of her body beyond the step,and certainly free of concealment by the door.

                    Comment


                    • So, the fundamental question is whether John Richardson was lying or telling the truth.

                      Alas, we shall never know.
                      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        Even in the morning at 4:50 it is not dark enough. At that time I can see my shed a good 30+ft away at the end of my garden. You're flogging a dead horse Christer. It was plenty light enough to see a body beside the steps, had it been there.
                        Jon, it is not as if I am saying that it was too dark for the body to be seen. What I am saying is that it was not yet light, as Richardson put it. It was gloomy, and that factor would not exactly have helped seeing the body, would it?
                        Bright daylight is a better conductor for our sight than gloom is, quite simply, and so that factor may well have played a role. it is a very healthy horse in my book.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                          [Coroner] Was it light?

                          [John Richardson] It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
                          Mmm, exactly - what Richardson says is that it was not so dark that parts of the backyard would be impossible to see. What he does NOT say is that he checked every inch of the back yard.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
                            Pre-British Summer Time, the light would have been what we have at 5:45am in the morning today. I was awake at that time this morning and made a point of observing the light outside. It was clear so it was at the brightest it could be. It would've been light enough to see something by the fence in the same way it was light enough for Richardson to see what he was doing as he cut his boot leather. If there was any cloud cover then the light would've obviously been reduced but not to the point of darkness.

                            That time in September is in magic hour territory so the light would've been fairly even across the whole yard. The only thing that would cast any dark shadows during that time would be objects in line with anything casting artificial light - gas lamp, candle light, torch.
                            I donīt think that our personal observations are going to be very helpful. What we have to go on is Richardsons own words: It was not yet light, but getting so. And basically, what tells dawn and dusk from full daylight is a decreased ability to make out things. Please note that I am in no way saying that the conditions would be equal to Richardson wearing a hood over his head. What I am pointing to is that it may be that if he only has a small part of the body within his field of sight or only threw a glance to his left, then factors such as the degree of light may well have been decisive in determining the chances that he would pick up on the body. Take, for example, the stockings R J speak about. They were striped in red and white, and that is a colour combination and pattern that is very easy to see in daylight. In gloom, however, all colours turn grey, and our ability to see them is very much decreased. It is in no way rocket science, but instead a simple fact that is of great importance in matters of visibility.
                            Last edited by Fisherman; 09-18-2020, 07:02 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              He must have had quite a stiff neck,looking always to the right.The higher the bottom of the door from the floor,the more space is going to be revealed,and the bottom of the door at 29 was sufficently high enough to see almost to the fence.That is to a person bent down tying the lace of his boot,but I suppose there are posters here ready to argue he tied while sitting upright,with head turned to the right.Was it the left or right boot?
                              Interesting Trevor ,that Chandler says her head was two foot from the wall at the back of the house.Must have put most of her body beyond the step,and certainly free of concealment by the door.
                              Is YOUR neck stiff when you look in a direction, whichever one we speak of? As for what I argue, it is a lot less restricted than what you argue. You argue that he MUST have seen the body, I argue that he either would or he would have not done so. Both possibilities exist. I keep an open mind and I donīt exclude what I donīt like when there is not a factual basis for doing so. Those who do it neverhteless are the ones with stiff necks and closed intellects.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                                So, the fundamental question is whether John Richardson was lying or telling the truth.

                                Alas, we shall never know.
                                It is one of the many questions adhering to Richardsons statement. I am not among the lucky ones who think there are no questions at all in his case.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X