Richardson's View

[Herlock Sholmes]

Spitalfields market was only 200 yards from no.29. Henry Holland went there to try to find a policeman, and was back at the house before Inspector Chandler arrived. I dare say he was overheard telling the policeman there had been a murder.

Daily News 13 Sept
"Henry J. Holland testified that he was one of the persons who saw the deceased lying dead in the yard behind 29, Hanbury-street. He went into the yard, but did not touch the body. Then he went for a policeman, whom he found in Spitalfields Market. The officer said he could not come, and the witness must get a constable outside the market. The witness went back, but could not find any other policeman. Inspector Chandler arrived soon after"

Thanks for that Joshua.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I believe a slightly conspiratorial mindset is optimal.
Like salt, a little bit is good for you.
It's just the extremes that should be avoided - too much leads to paranoia, while too little results in naiveté.
Sure there are a lot of paranoid people in the world, but so too are there many (and perhaps growing numbers of) people, who avoid dealing with inconvenient information by dismissing those talking about it, as conspiracy theorists.

Unfortunately the main piece of ‘inconvenient ‘ information that people are dismissing is the fact that Richardson said that - he could not have missed the body had it been there. That is the most relevant point. He knew exactly where the body was and how much floor space it took up and the position he took on the step and how light or dark it was and what areas of the yard he could or could not see. He had no reason to lie on that particular issue. And what do we have against this. Disputed wording, rabbits and an unreliable TOD estimation.

And then, even worse we have the frankly desperate attempt to dismiss Cadosch. A sensible sounding and cautious witness. Is it likely that a word emanating from a couple of feet away could actually have come from yards away? We should dismiss all of this blather and say no of course it’s not. This was obviously Cadosch being over cautious when pressed. Then he heard a noise. ( Oh of course he was lying according to Fish) but if he wasn’t then will someone please - and I’ve asked this a few times - tell us what else it could have been if Annie was already dead?

[Joshua Rogan]

]
So how did this Thomas Pearman at the market find out about the murder soon enough that Richardson was able to return to Hanbury St before Phillips arrived, which itself was only a little more than half an hour after the time of discovery?

Spitalfields market was only 200 yards from no.29. Henry Holland went there to try to find a policeman, and was back at the house before Inspector Chandler arrived. I dare say he was overheard telling the policeman there had been a murder.

Daily News 13 Sept
"Henry J. Holland testified that he was one of the persons who saw the deceased lying dead in the yard behind 29, Hanbury-street. He went into the yard, but did not touch the body. Then he went for a policeman, whom he found in Spitalfields Market. The officer said he could not come, and the witness must get a constable outside the market. The witness went back, but could not find any other policeman. Inspector Chandler arrived soon after"

[Joshua Rogan]

Like salt, a little bit is good for you.
It's just the extremes that should be avoided - too much leads to paranoia, while too little results in naiveté.

You hear that Al? No more crying in your pot noodle, or you'll get paranoid

[Fisherman]

Nice summary, but there is a problem with 3:30-ish; Mrs Richardson heard nothing around that time...

WB: Which room do you occupy?
AR: The first floor front, and my grandson slept in the same room on Friday night. I went to bed about half-past nine, and was very wakeful half the night. I was awake at three a.m., and only dozed after that.
WB: Did you hear any noise during the night?
AR: No.
...
WB: Did you ever see anyone in the passage?
AR: Yes, about a month ago I heard a man on the stairs. I called Thompson, and the man said he was waiting for market.
WB: At what time was this?
AR: Between half-past three and four o'clock. I could hear anyone going through the passage. I did not hear any one going through on Saturday morning.
WB: You heard no cries?
AR: None.
WB: Supposing a person had gone through at half-past three, would that have attracted your attention?
AR: Yes.
WB: You always hear people going to the back-yard?
AR: Yes; people frequently do go through.
WB: People go there who have no business to do so?
AR: Yes; I daresay they do.
WB: On Saturday morning you feel confident no one did go through?
AR: Yes; I should have heard the sound.
WB: They must have walked purposely quietly?
AR: Yes; or I should have heard them.


Another problem with 3:30 is the lack of light. It would have been almost completely dark then, would it not?
A bit of dawn light would have helped immensely.

It must not have been 3.30 exactly, as you may gather. 3.15 or 3.45 are equally good bids. And many people close to the murder sites heard nothing although it was found afterwards that victims were killed right next to them. It was one of the significant traits of this killer, and Mrs Richardson admits that if the killer and Chapman walked "purposely quietly", they could have passed unnoticed.

And the darkness? Did it stop the killer in Bucks Row, in Dutfields Yard, in Mitre Square? Nope. He CHOSE to work in darkness, going for the darkest corner of Mitre Square for example.

[Fisherman]

The above post was a messed up attempt to respond by me.

That there’s no point going over the medical arguments I couldn’t agree more. We went over this on the other thread and (as I was posting with the assistance of someone that really knows what he’s talking about) you were proven wrong. Over and over again with quote after quote and evidence piled upon evidence. The debate ended with you storming off to investigate, intending to return in a blaze of glory with refutations. Have you? Of course you haven’t because there are none. You are wrong.

You see, it is when you resort to this kind of argumentation that everything goes awry. You have never proven me wrong on this matter and you won´t be able to do so either, and you really need to see that. if I had said that the doctors were infallible and that the method of feeling for warmth was exact and always correct, you would, culd and should prove me wrong. But I never said that and I never will. What I said is that the combined weight of Phillips´ evidence in combination with the very short time Chapman would have been dead if the witnesses were to be correct makes for an equation that the proposal of a TOD at 5.30 cannot solve. And that stands.

Now, I’ve never said that Phillips couldn’t have gotten it right or that he was in any way incompetent.

No, you only said that he can be dismissed and that his bid was a toss-up.

No, you said that There were affecting circumstances which, at that time, he would have had no way of knowing could have affected his estimation. We have no way of validating his TOD because we weren’t there to verify anything. So we have a TOD which might or might not have been right or wrong. What possible use is that? We can’t evaluate it but we can evaluate witnesses because that’s all that we have. Witnesses say later TOD. Only a desperation for Phillips to have been correct would push someone to argue so strongly for something so inconclusive.

There are four (4) different parameters weighed in by Phillips, and he was a police surgeon of 23 years standing, with a solid reputation. That is what you throw in the waste, replacing it with three witnesses, two of whom contradicted each other and a third who we know was doubted by the police after having produyced a testimony that was as stable as a leaf on the Pacific Ocean.
That´s your way of doing things, and you afre welcome to it. Just don´t claim that you are in any way more likely to be correct and we shall be fine.

The fact of this ‘missing’ time of Chapmans is a complete red herring. This was a middle aged, east end prostitution that sadly very few people cared less about. This wasn’t Kim Kardashian disappearing from social media for a week. We don’t know where Annie was. So what?

So what...? That´s really top class detective work on your behalf, Herlock. You have earned your moniker. The papers at the time considered it a riddle, but you know better, as always. A red herring, that we should not take to the protocol. God forbid!

Let´s just say that I have a very different approach to these things. And that it was not only your former post you messed up.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Quote by NotBlamedForNothing

I find this very difficult to believe.

Because you’re thinking like a conspiracy theorist.

I believe a slightly conspiratorial mindset is optimal.
Like salt, a little bit is good for you.
It's just the extremes that should be avoided - too much leads to paranoia, while too little results in naiveté.
Sure there are a lot of paranoid people in the world, but so too are there many (and perhaps growing numbers of) people, who avoid dealing with inconvenient information by dismissing those talking about it, as conspiracy theorists.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The above post was a messed up attempt to respond by me.

That there’s no point going over the medical arguments I couldn’t agree more. We went over this on the other thread and (as I was posting with the assistance of someone that really knows what he’s talking about) you were proven wrong. Over and over again with quote after quote and evidence piled upon evidence. The debate ended with you storming off to investigate, intending to return in a blaze of glory with refutations. Have you? Of course you haven’t because there are none. You are wrong.

Now, I’ve never said that Phillips couldn’t have gotten it right or that he was in any way incompetent. There were affecting circumstances which, at that time, he would have had no way of knowing could have affected his estimation. We have no way of validating his TOD because we weren’t there to verify anything. So we have a TOD which might or might not have been right or wrong. What possible use is that? We can’t evaluate it but we can evaluate witnesses because that’s all that we have. Witnesses say later TOD. Only a desperation for Phillips to have been correct would push someone to argue so strongly for something so inconclusive.

The fact of this ‘missing’ time of Chapmans is a complete red herring. This was a middle aged, east end prostitution that sadly very few people cared less about. This wasn’t Kim Kardashian disappearing from social media for a week. We don’t know where Annie was. So what?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A doctor using unreliable methods can be virtually dismissed as an irrelevance. His TOD estimation was a toss up. Just as likely to have been wrong or right and so worthless. Your faith in him is touching Fish.

And that is where you go wrong, as always. In order to rely on the three witnesses, you dub Phillips and his work unreliable and a toss-up, whereas it is common knowledge that a body as freshly dead as half an hour to an hour will not loose much if any temperature at all.

We´ve been over this before, though, and I consider it a waste of time to keep at it.

Of course witnesses can lie but this is usually used as a ‘get out’ clause. There’s not a shred of evidence that Cadosch lied. And all we have on Richardson is the knife confusion and Chandler (who of cause cannot have been wrong)

It is not about how we can prove that any one of them did. It is about how we KNOW that this is a factor that may play a role, and therefore it detracts from the overall veracity of witnesses as a group, whereas police surgeons do not have this flaw.

Of course you can try to use Long and Cadosch to cancel each other out but what does it leave us?

A very clear implication that neither of them saw or heard Chapman, and a very good reason to accept that she was killed at aproximately the same time as the other victims. In the shielding darkness of the early morning hours. That´s where it leaves us.

They both lied - we have no evidence for this apart from each other and the unreliable TOD from Phillips. Wish thinking.

Actually no, if I could have my wish, I would wish that nobody lied, misconstrued, misremembered or misinterpreted. Ever.

If only one of them lied - it’s still a later TOD and Richardson was right.

Whether they lied or got it wrong is immaterial. Chapman was neverthless long since dead when they made/claimed to have made their observations.

Or they were both truthful but there times were slightly out - all 3 witness fit, later TOD.

It was you (and Wynne Baxter) who introduced the concept of wishful thinking, not me.

Richardson and Cadosch were right. Long possibly out with her time.

Long possibly lying. Long possibly having seen another couple. Long not having seen Chapman at around 5.30.

When John Richardson said that he couldn’t possibly have missed the body had it been there we have no valid reason to disbelieve him.

You don´t think the verdict of a very experienced doctor who weighed together numerous factors before saying "NOT later than 4.30 and probably significantly earlier!" is a valid reason to disbelieve Richardson. I do. And that´s something that willl not change, so you are going to have to live with it.
Heaps of experts all have said the same thing: feeling for warmth is an unreliable method.
I am no expert, but I agree with them.
I nevertheless think that the question should be posed like this: Is a highly experienced police surgeon who feels a woman who has seemingly been dead for less than an hour going to mistake her for somebody who has been dead numerous hours, thereby loosing almost all of her discernable body warmth? And is such a victim, dead for only between 45 minutes and an hour likely to develop rigor in that time? In cold conditions, and with a totally cut up body?
That is something entirely different from trying to tell a ten hour dead woman from a five hour dead woman by feeling for warmth. In such a case, the method is more or less useless.
Once again, I have explained all of this to your deaf ears before, and it would be wasting time to do it further times. You will just have to wait and see what happens as people look into the issue from a less closed mindset than the one that has prevailed for many a year within ripperology.
It takes time - and a better argument - to change these things.
I have both.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Chandler at the inquest:

"The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps."



This is one of 3 points where Richardson contradicted himself.


+ what he told his mother and she denied.

+ that he cut the leather off his boot with a table-knife in the yard.


It is safe to dismiss his testimony as an indication of the TOD, not to mention the Epilepsy, absence seizures, and the Johny in Wonderland adventure!



The Baron

And as Forum history has taught us it’s entirely safe and prudent to dismiss anything that you say.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Quote by NotBlamedForNothing


Yes we do.

JR: I looked to see if the cellar door was all right, and, although I did not go down into the yard, I could see that it was all right. I saw the padlock in its proper place. The sole object I had in going there was to see whether the cellar was all right. When I come home at night I go down and try if the cellar is all right.

So at nighttime, Richardson cannot see the padlock from the doorstep, so he goes right to it to check it. Whereas at a quarter to five in the morning, he can supposedly clearly see the padlock by peeping around the corner from the top doorstep.

Night time is dark - then it gets lighter. No mystery.

Would Richardson really walk from John St to Hanbury St every market morning, to check the cellar padlock, but stop a few steps short of the cellar door?

Yes.

I find this very difficult to believe.

Because you’re thinking like a conspiracy theorist.

Seems Richardson is keen for us to believe that he did not go into the yard that morning. Why might that be?

Because that’s what he did?

It is also questionable that Richardson could have got a good view of the the cellar padlock from the top step, as the cellar door seems to me to be flush with building's back wall...

No it’s not. No one else questioned this.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]n742699[/ATTACH]


JR: [... I] 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.

Where else would he keep a table knife, other than where he lives?

That’s what he said?

JR: I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket.

Really?
How many of these rabbits eating carrots, have had the carrot cut up for them with a good sharp knife, let alone a blunt broken table knife?

Millions. Including Benji, the rabbit that I had when I was twelve. Rabbits definitely eat carrots NBFN unless you come from somewhere that has carnivorous rabbits that bring down an antelope to sustain themselves?

JR: After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market.

So where is the piece of leather? (I could ask the same of the rabbit - was it's existence ascertained by the police?)

Doesnt appear like it unless it wasn’t mentioned. But I agree that they should have looked

Daily Telegraph: He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.

Seems he lied about cutting the leather on the step.

Theres a discrepancy for which there might have been an explanation which has been lost in the transcription.

JR: I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.

I find it difficult to believe that Richardson would not have pushed the door wide open to get it out of the way of his (failed) boot cutting excise.
In that case, why would the door have closed itself?

The door might have stayed open at 90% (for eg) and swung shut with a tap from Richardson.

If the door was pushed wide open (which I believe is a reasonable assumption), where would Richardson have to have stood to grab it, to pull it closed?

On the edge (there’s probably a proper word for this part)

Well if Chapman had been killed in the dark (< 4:45), he would have to step where Annie's head was, otherwise on the ground between steps and fence.

Why would he have had to step where Annie’s head was?

The huge problem with the second scenario is of course; Jack must have killed in almost broad daylight.

JR: By the Jury: My mother has heard me speak of people having been in the house. She has heard them herself.

Really?

Coroner: Did you ever know of strange women being found on the first-floor landing?
Mrs. R.: No.
Coroner: Your son had never spoken to you about it?
Mrs. R.: No.

Seems he lied about that too. Either that or Mrs. Richardson had a really bad memory.
Does this sound like someone suffering from poor memory?...

A misunderstanding.

Mrs. R.: On Thursday, Sept. 6, I found my son's leather apron in the cellar mildewed. He had not used it for a month. I took it and put it under the tap in the yard, and left it there. It was found there on Saturday morning by the police, who took charge of it. The apron had remained there from Thursday to Saturday.

JR: I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. A man in the market told me of the murder, and I went to the adjourning yard, and saw it from there. The man's name is Thomas Pearman, and he told me there had been a murder in Hanbury-street, but he did not say that it was at my house.

Dr. Phillips: On Saturday last I was called by the police at 6.20 a.m. to 29, Hanbury-street, and arrived at half-past six.

So how did this Thomas Pearman at the market find out about the murder soon enough that Richardson was able to return to Hanbury St before Phillips arrived, which itself was only a little more than half an hour after the time of discovery?

Who knows? Rumours tend to spread like wildfire. This was major news. Pearlman might have heard in the street early on and made a beeline for Richardson because of the address.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

3. Rigor mortis: Rigor typically sets in earliest at around two hours after heat, but in cold conditions, it takes longer. So two hours was a true minimum as per Phillips, and three hours would be a better guess. Once again, we end up at 3.30-ish.

Nice summary, but there is a problem with 3:30-ish; Mrs Richardson heard nothing around that time...

WB: Which room do you occupy?
AR: The first floor front, and my grandson slept in the same room on Friday night. I went to bed about half-past nine, and was very wakeful half the night. I was awake at three a.m., and only dozed after that.
WB: Did you hear any noise during the night?
AR: No.
...
WB: Did you ever see anyone in the passage?
AR: Yes, about a month ago I heard a man on the stairs. I called Thompson, and the man said he was waiting for market.
WB: At what time was this?
AR: Between half-past three and four o'clock. I could hear anyone going through the passage. I did not hear any one going through on Saturday morning.
WB: You heard no cries?
AR: None.
WB: Supposing a person had gone through at half-past three, would that have attracted your attention?
AR: Yes.
WB: You always hear people going to the back-yard?
AR: Yes; people frequently do go through.
WB: People go there who have no business to do so?
AR: Yes; I daresay they do.
WB: On Saturday morning you feel confident no one did go through?
AR: Yes; I should have heard the sound.
WB: They must have walked purposely quietly?
AR: Yes; or I should have heard them.


Another problem with 3:30 is the lack of light. It would have been almost completely dark then, would it not?
A bit of dawn light would have helped immensely.

[Fisherman]

I appreciate the above statement is made in the heat of debate, but the underlying issue is whether we should dismiss medical evidence in this case. It is absolutely true, beyond argument, that estimating time of death was not a precise science and prone to error. Though the closer to the time of death an estimate is made, the more likely it is to be more accurate. We have two medical estimates of time of death in this case - one at the scene based on the condition and temperature of the body - where it was estimated as about 2 hours or more earlier (so 4.30am or earlier). There was also an estimate to be made based on digestion of a meal of potatoes which Annie was known to have eaten at about 1.30-45am. The digestion of that meal suggested she had eaten two to three hours before death, this agrees roughly with the other time of death estimate. Two, admittedly not entirely reliable, estimates which support each other strengthens the medical estimate, in my view. It could still be incorrect, but the two methods corroborate each other in the same way as multiple witnesses corroborating each other provides more confidence in their stories.

You are very correct, etenguy - but you are not even half way there. The list of Phillips´observations involve four items, all of them pointing to the same conclusion:

1. Body heat: Body heat is discernible for up to four hours, when feeling for it by hand. Phillips said that there was some little remaining heat in the abdomen under the intestines, otherwise the body was cold. He postulated that Chapman would have been dead for at least two hours, and probably longer than so. Two hours takes us to around 4.30, and so this is why Phillips said that it was probably longer; he could only feel very little heat, and so he predisposed that the correct TOD would likely have to wander some way further back in time. If we use three hours, we can see how the body heat should have been running low, and so 3.30-ish seems a fair bid.

2. Food digestion: Just like you say, this factor points in the same direction as the body heat factor.

3. Rigor mortis: Rigor typically sets in earliest at around two hours after heat, but in cold conditions, it takes longer. So two hours was a true minimum as per Phillips, and three hours would be a better guess. Once again, we end up at 3.30-ish.

4. Clotting: Phillips said that the blood was "well clotted", not that it had only just clotted. For him to make this call, he must have touched the coagulated blood and felt that it was well dried up. It was not just a coagulated cover over fluid blood.

These parameters are all in direct conflict with a TOD at 5.30. Temperaturewise, we know that the initial 30-60 minutes after death normally do not involve any loss of body temperature. The temperature can even rise somewhat in connection with that period of time, before it starts to go down. Eddowes is an apt comparison; 40-45 minutes after death, she was still quite warm to the touch. The same goes for Nichols, who at Llewellyns arrival was quite warm but for the hands - that may always have been cold. And Llewellyn was there at 6.05-6.10 approximately, so we are looking at a fairly long time, not least if we want Nichols to have been cut way before Charles Lechmere arrived by her side ...

There is also the element of high profile cases producing faulty testimonies. I don´t know how many people professed to being Jack the Ripper, but they were MANY. Surely, we are not to believe all of them? Just because we cant prove them wrong?

Last, but not least, only one of the suggestions, the one of a small hour strike and the one of a strike at dawn, compares to the other cases, where it was always dark when the killer struck. That too is an important factor to consider.

The papers also remarked upon how it was odd that a well known character like Annie Chapman had not been spotted by anybody at all in the hours leading up to 5.30. It leaves us with roughly four hours when she would supposedly have walked the streets unseen and unheard of.

All in all, one can always choose to opt for believing in the witnesses and dismissing the medical evidence and disregarding the high profile case factor as well as the deviation from the killers ordinary schedule and the four hour invisibility factor. But one cannot mock the idea that Phillips was correct all along, and that Chapman was killed in the early morning hours. It is a very sound suggestion and one that should never have been abandoned by ripperology they way that has happened over the years. I salute your post, etenguy - but I want the full extent of the material speaking for an early TOD to get on the table

[Joshua Rogan]

Chandler at the inquest:

"The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps."

Or, as the Daily News reported it;

"Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."

This is one of 3 points where Richardson contradicted himself.

+ what he told his mother and she denied.

Just because Mrs Richardson denied seeing women in the house doesn't mean it was John who was lying. This is from Davis' testimony;

"[Coroner] Have you ever seen women in the passage? - Mrs. Richardson has said there have been. I have not seen them myself. "

She also seems to have been forgetful about the burglary, which she appears to have denied at first. When John said "She forgot. If you will ask her, you see that it is right." she was recalled and then mentioned it.

So, both times John contradicted his mother, he appears to have been correct.

[The Baron]

Chandler at the inquest:

"The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps."



This is one of 3 points where Richardson contradicted himself.


+ what he told his mother and she denied.

+ that he cut the leather off his boot with a table-knife in the yard.


It is safe to dismiss his testimony as an indication of the TOD, not to mention the Epilepsy, absence seizures, and the Johny in Wonderland adventure!



The Baron