Richardson's View

[Fisherman]

Yes, Christer, that is your assumption. Richardson does not say the door rested against his arm as he sat there.
This second guessing what a witness saw is desperate, PC Long is treated the same way. He was certain the apron was not there, he did after all see the same spot both before & after, so he is in a good position to judge.
Likewise with Richardson, he was just as certain the body could not have been there. He is reported to have said, "...She was found lying just where my feet were.."
Like PC Long, Richardson saw the spot both before and after. He saw where the body lay from the neighboring yard, so he was not guessing.
You have no grounds for disputing what the witness saw, it's not what he was told, nor what he thinks. It's what he saw, and he could see all across the yard.

There isn't a lot of room between the steps and the fence in this pic.



That door is not going to obscure the body of a woman.

True enough! With that position of the door Chapman would have been very visible.

Then again ... imagine the doorblade pointing towards the photographer. What happens, Jon? Nothing?

[Fisherman]

If we just imagine a man standing at ground level (as Richardson would have had to have done before he sat down) then the door would have been against his left hand side and at around 90 degrees. Surely the natural thing, either as he descended the steps or as he sat down, would have been to push the door open wider?

I canīt say. But I CAN say that the natural thing to ask once we are discussing whether Richardson saw Chapman or not is whether it WAS pushed fully open!

For Richardson to have missed her he’d have had acted almost as if he intentionally was avoiding seeing her (I’m not suggesting intention btw) Looking only to the right, keeping the door open only diagonally and then sitting with the door pressing against the left side of his body (awkward when trying to do repair work on a shoe)

There is nevertheless a very clear option that this was exactly what happened. If you can identify how the body could havce stayed unseen, then why can you not accept that this may have happened...?

If he was mistaken then we are assuming that Richardson was unaware of the concept of an object being hidden.

No, we are not assuming any such thing.

He said that he couldn’t have missed a body so on what grounds do we suggest that he was mistaken?

On the gorunds that he may have been mistaken. It may well be that he really BELIEVED that he would have seen the body if it was there, the way many out here believe the same thing. And it may well be that he was wrong the way many out here are also. It may also be that he did not want her to have been there without him having seen her, as he thought it would make him look ridiculous.
And it may be that he was not there the way he said he was. If you look at the Star article posted earlier, you can see how the police reasoned about it; it seemd to them the body WAS there at the time when Richardson claimed to have cut the leather from his shoe. Which he didnīt do.

If it wasn’t for Phillips no one would have proposed that he could have missed the body.

So what do we do? Congratulate ourselves on having the medicos view or damn him for standing in our way? Plus, of course, anybody who checked it could have seen that Richardson could have been wrong. The physics of the matter does not change with Phillipīs words.

Very little can be called impossible but I’d say we can call the suggestion that Richardson missed the body as unlikely in the extreme.

And Iīd disagree. It is not unlikely in the extreme at all. Unexpected, perhaps, but nothing more than so. And once again, the fact that you cannot allow yourself to say that it IS impossible speaks volumes.

[Fisherman]

Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the lefthand recess, between the stone steps and the fence. She was on her back, with her head towards the house and her legs towards the wood shed. The clothes were up to her groins. I did not go into the yard

Ah! "I did not go into the yard". Missed that. However, it still boils down to the degree to which the door was opened together with the degree to which the one opening the door looked to the left. Right?

[DJA]

Nope.

As previously mentioned I do this several times a day ...... for over 25 years!

[barnflatwyngarde]

Surely basic police procedure when investigating a murder would be to have a "run through" of important evidence supplied by witnesses.
In this case, is it ridiculous to suggest that police would have ensured that an officer took up the exact position that Richardson claimed to have occupied?

[DJA]

James Kent, 20, Drew's Blocks, Shadwell, a packing-case maker, said: I work for Mr. Bayley, 23A, Hanbury-street, and go there at six a.m. On Saturday I arrived about ten minutes past that hour. Our employer's gate was open, and there I waited for some other men.


Davis, who lives two or three doors away, ran from his house into the road and cried, "Men, come here." James Green and I went together to 29, Hanbury-street, and on going through the passage, standing on the top of the back door steps, I saw a woman lying in the yard between the steps and the partition between the yard and the next. Her head was near the house, but no part of the body was against the wall. The feet were lying towards the back of Bayley's premises. (Witness indicated the precise position upon a plan produced by the police-officers). Deceased's clothes were disarranged, and her apron was thrown over them. I did not go down the steps,



but went outside and returned after Inspector Chandler had arrived. I could see that the woman was dead. She had some kind of handkerchief around her throat which seemed soaked in blood. The face and hands were besmeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat. The legs were wide apart, and there were marks of blood upon them. The entrails were protruding, and were lying across her left side. I got a piece of canvass from the shop to throw over the body, and by that time a mob had assembled, and Inspector Chandler was in possession of the yard. The foreman gets to the shop at ten minutes to six every morning, and he was there before us.

[Fisherman]

James Kent, 20, Drew's Blocks, Shadwell, a packing-case maker, said: I work for Mr. Bayley, 23A, Hanbury-street, and go there at six a.m. On Saturday I arrived about ten minutes past that hour. Our employer's gate was open, and there I waited for some other men.


Davis, who lives two or three doors away, ran from his house into the road and cried, "Men, come here." James Green and I went together to 29, Hanbury-street, and on going through the passage, standing on the top of the back door steps, I saw a woman lying in the yard between the steps and the partition between the yard and the next. Her head was near the house, but no part of the body was against the wall. The feet were lying towards the back of Bayley's premises. (Witness indicated the precise position upon a plan produced by the police-officers). Deceased's clothes were disarranged, and her apron was thrown over them. I did not go down the steps,



but went outside and returned after Inspector Chandler had arrived. I could see that the woman was dead. She had some kind of handkerchief around her throat which seemed soaked in blood. The face and hands were besmeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat. The legs were wide apart, and there were marks of blood upon them. The entrails were protruding, and were lying across her left side. I got a piece of canvass from the shop to throw over the body, and by that time a mob had assembled, and Inspector Chandler was in possession of the yard. The foreman gets to the shop at ten minutes to six every morning, and he was there before us.

Okay? And? Isnīt it the exact same? If the door was opened to itīs maximum, anybody standing on top of the stairs could easily see Chapman.

[Fisherman]

Surely basic police procedure when investigating a murder would be to have a "run through" of important evidence supplied by witnesses.

This happened 132 years ago. Standard police procedure back then was not what standard police procedure is today. And even today, standard police procedure is not standard at all times. Remember Tia Sharp? It would, one would hope, be standard police procedure in 2012 to search the loft of her grandmothers place, where it was suspected that Tia could be, in a thorough manner. But it was only the fourth time the police searched that loft that they actually found the body wrapped in black bed sheet and tucked in a black bag. Thereīs standard poilice procedure for you...

In this case, is it ridiculous to suggest that police would have ensured that an officer took up the exact position that Richardson claimed to have occupied?

No, it is not ridiculous at all. Personally, I believe they did make such a test. And I think it simply could not prove that Richardson must have seen Chapman if she was there.

[Joshua Rogan]

Daily News 14 Sept;

"The Coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Mr. Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable. The jury questioned the police-officer with the view of ascertaining whether it may have been possible that when Richardson went to the yard the body might have been laying there without his perceiving it. The inspector thought that it was very possible if he had only gone to the top of the steps. In that case, as the door opened outwards, it might have concealed the body behind it. Richardson, however, had sworn that he sat on the middle step with his feet on the ground, to cut a piece from his shoe, and it was allowed that in this position he must inevitably have seen the murdered woman. The importance of this point is that upon it depends the limitation of the time within which the murder must have been committed."

[Herlock Sholmes]

And Iīd disagree. It is not unlikely in the extreme at all. Unexpected, perhaps, but nothing more than so. And once again, the fact that you cannot allow yourself to say that it IS impossible speaks volumes.

But there’s a sizeable difference between not impossible and likely. Almost anything is ‘possible’ Fish. For Richardson to have missed her we have to assume a very specific set of circumstances and dismiss more natural ones. Then we have to assume that he would have been so spatially unaware as to not realise that the body might have been hidden behind the door ( if it was there) Or that he lied.
We’re never going to agree on this Fish but my own opinion is that the chances of Richardson missing the body, if it was there, would have been almost vanishingly remote.

[Fisherman]

Daily News 14 Sept;

"The Coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Mr. Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable. The jury questioned the police-officer with the view of ascertaining whether it may have been possible that when Richardson went to the yard the body might have been laying there without his perceiving it. The inspector thought that it was very possible if he had only gone to the top of the steps. In that case, as the door opened outwards, it might have concealed the body behind it. Richardson, however, had sworn that he sat on the middle step with his feet on the ground, to cut a piece from his shoe, and it was allowed that in this position he must inevitably have seen the murdered woman. The importance of this point is that upon it depends the limitation of the time within which the murder must have been committed."

Yeah, I know, Joshua. And I know that it was reasoned that he perhaps could have missed her anyway. Surely you have come across the ****-sure type of person who says things like thse on very flimsy grounds? If not: congratulations.

[Fisherman]

But there’s a sizeable difference between not impossible and likely.

And what does that perceived difference mean to our exchange? Should one of us budge? And why? Who lays down the rules?

Almost anything is ‘possible’ Fish.

Does that mean that you are going to change your mind? Or is that one bridge too far? Impossible, as it were?

For Richardson to have missed her we have to assume a very specific set of circumstances and dismiss more natural ones.

Similarly, to accept that he must have seen her we must assume another specific set of circumstances: he must have opened the door enough, he must have looked to his left, it must have been bright enough ...
You see, there are always two sides to a coin - but is sometimes needs to be pointed out.
There is really not nothing odd about not opening a door to the full. Or about not looking to your left. Or, for that matter, claiming that one cannot be wrong. Doors are opened to a rather smallish gap every day, people abstain from looking left every day and people falsely claim that they cannot have been wrong every day.
What is important to note here is that it is not as if I champion a diminutive, odd and almost impossible matter, whereas you speak for the clear and obvious choice to the sane portion of humanity. Our bids are both as viable as the other manīs.

Then we have to assume that he would have been so spatially unaware as to not realise that the body might have been hidden behind the door ( if it was there) Or that he lied.

No, we do not. It could be a case of him not wanting to look silly, for example. It may well be that he in retrospect, after having asserted that he must have been right, realized that the body COULD have been hidden behind the door and that he COULD have missed it - and that he did not want to admit to it for looking foolish. So letīs not get ahead of ourselves!
And yes, he may well have lied. Once again, take a look at that Star article, stating that the police were suspecting that they could not rely on trusty old Richardson and that it seemed he was wrong about the body. Once again, look at both sides of the coin!
Also, most out here are so spatially unaware that they reason that the body could not have been hidden. As I mentioned earlier, R J Palmer took me up on doing a thorough check and came away with the insight that I was correct about the point. So much for spatial awareness!

We’re never going to agree on this Fish but my own opinion is that the chances of Richardson missing the body, if it was there, would have been almost vanishingly remote.

You have made that clear, Herlock. I hope I have been no less clear myself.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Fish.

Although I tend to believe that Chapman was killed at 5.30 a.m., I wish to be fair-minded about it.

One thing to bear in mind as we discuss these events, is that the drawing of Richardson sitting placidly on the steps (below, left) shows a wide gap between where he is sitting and the door to his left, which makes his angle of visibility ample enough to have seen the body.

However...

When I re-staged these events to satisfy my own curiosity, I used a spring-loaded door, and the tension was strong enough to press the door firmly against my side, which greatly reduced my angle of vision to the left. Indeed, the force of the door made me naturally angle myself to my right. This is a factor that is not immediately obvious no matter how long one stares at photographs, and might suggest that the drawing is misleading.

Yes, sitting there on the steps fiddling with my shoe, while the door was trying to close on top of me was clumsy as hell. I don't know if it was 'historically' credible that this is what Richardson would have put up with, but I felt it was a necessary assumption based on Richard's statement to the Coroner:

"I did not close the door. It closed itself."

Which suggests the door was under tension. Whether it had spring-loaded hinges, I do not know, but these hinges seem to be defunct or missing when the above photographs were taken, because the door is obviously standing wide open!

It is difficult to see how the above door could have been fitted with a spring mechanism, unless the circled piece in photo #2 are the remnants of some sort of hardware that I am unfamiliar with. Not sure what it is.

You see, I'm a west coast Yank, so nothing in my neck of the woods dates before Elvis and pre-sliced bread. If a building is more than 15 minutes old, we tear it down and rebuild it.

What is your explanation, spring hinges, or something else?

[rjpalmer]

But forget Richardson. What color were Annie Chapman's socks? This may be the most vital question of all!!

(Not a joke)

[Joshua Rogan]

But forget Richardson. What color were Annie Chapman's socks? This may be the most vital question of all!!

(Not a joke)

I believe they were striped, red and white, though I can't find the reference at present