Richardson's View

[etenguy]

Sigh. Read up on R J Palmers post. He seems to be the only one who put it to the test, which is always a good thing. And guess what he found?

I rarely disagree outright with you, Fisherman - but on this occasion I must. There is nothing in R J Palmers post which suggests Richardson would not have seen the body if it had been there. The body extended way beyond the width of the door and unless the door curled round in front of him, he would have seen it had he been where he stated he was. Not an iota of doubt in my mind.

[Fisherman]

I rarely disagree outright with you, Fisherman - but on this occasion I must. There is nothing in R J Palmers post which suggests Richardson would not have seen the body if it had been there. The body extended way beyond the width of the door and unless the door curled round in front of him, he would have seen it had he been where he stated he was. Not an iota of doubt in my mind.

A door can hide a giraffe, etenguy. It can hide Rio de Janeiro. It is not as if anything extending beyond the width of a door will always be seen by somebody behind that door. Take, for instance, a situation when the door is closed - it is not as if we can see through it, is it? Neither is it as if once we open it up an inch, we can see everything behind it.

That is a logic that follows through, I´m afraid. Once we add the fact that a person can be positioned in many ways visavi a door, we get a whole lot of possible outcomes, many of them involving all sort of objects, bodies as well as Latin American cities, being hidden.

If you disagree with that, you are factually wrong. But just as welcome anyway!

Godnight, etenguy!

[Wickerman]

Sigh. Read up on R J Palmers post. He seems to be the only one who put it to the test, which is always a good thing. And guess what he found?

RJ was not there Christer, Richardson was.
Oh, and so was Kent & Davis.

[etenguy]

A door can hide a giraffe, etenguy. It can hide Rio de Janeiro. It is not as if anything extending beyond the width of a door will always be seen by somebody behind that door. Take, for instance, a situation when the door is closed - it is not as if we can see through it, is it? Neither is it as if once we open it up an inch, we can see everything behind it.

That is a logic that follows through, I´m afraid. Once we add the fact that a person can be positioned in many ways visavi a door, we get a whole lot of possible outcomes, many of them involving all sort of objects, bodies as well as Latin American cities, being hidden.

If you disagree with that, you are factually wrong. But just as welcome anyway!

Godnight, etenguy!

There is nothing wrong with your logic, Fisherman - it just does not apply in this case - Richardson states he was sitting on the step, which means the door was fully or close to fully open. It had to be for Richardson to sit there. In that case, if the body was there, he couldn't fail to notice it.

[Simon Wood]

Annie Chapman must have been murdered at around 5.30 am.

Putting her murder an hour earlier [à la Dr. Phillips] contradicted what was to become the Ripper's unique signature set—lightning backyard/kerbside surgical skills in less than perfect lighting conditions, split-second timing and an uncanny ability to melt unnoticed into the purlieus of the East End.

When the legend becomes fact . . .

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Richardson of course never said that he could see straight ahead, that is your invention. He said that it was so light that he could see all over the yard. Meaning that he could do so if he wished to, not that he actually did look at the whole yard.

Come on Fish. He said that he couldn’t have missed her had she been there. He couldn’t have said that if he hadn’t looked in that direction.

[Wickerman]

A door can hide a giraffe, etenguy. It can hide Rio de Janeiro. It is not as if anything extending beyond the width of a door will always be seen by somebody behind that door. Take, for instance, a situation when the door is closed - it is not as if we can see through it, is it? Neither is it as if once we open it up an inch, we can see everything behind it.

That is a logic that follows through, I´m afraid. Once we add the fact that a person can be positioned in many ways visavi a door, we get a whole lot of possible outcomes, many of them involving all sort of objects, bodies as well as Latin American cities, being hidden.

If you disagree with that, you are factually wrong. But just as welcome anyway!

Godnight, etenguy!

Sorry to take this position Christer but, the only question of logic here is why we are having this debate. It's an argument that makes no sense to me.
Richardson couldn't possibly miss the body, in my view.

[Joshua Rogan]

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

Yes, after looking fruitlessly through all the various press reports, I found it in the list of clothing on her victim's page;

• Red and white striped woolen stockings

Not sure where that came from originally, though...is there a clothing list in the Ultimate?

[rjpalmer]

...is there a clothing list in the Ultimate?

Unfortunately, no. The only contemporary reports I have found--and I have dug around for ages--describes them as 'striped stockings,' but give no colors.

They are often depicted as red-and-white in 'Ripper' documentaries, but as far as I know this might be traceable only to Donald McCormick or some such source.

[etenguy]

Unfortunately, no. The only contemporary reports I have found--and I have dug around for ages--describes them as 'striped stockings,' but give no colors.

They are often depicted as red-and-white in 'Ripper' documentaries, but as far as I know this might be traceable only to Donald McCormick or some such source.

May I ask why you are interested in the colour of the socks/stockings?

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry to take this position Christer but, the only question of logic here is why we are having this debate. It's an argument that makes no sense to me.
Richardson couldn't possibly miss the body, in my view.

I think you are wrong in a previous post I made mention of what angle the door was open and still maintain that he could have missed the body dependant on that fact.

I have marked roughly where I think the angle of the door being open would have prevented him seeing the body and he probably kept it open by allowing it to rest against him while he was cutting his boot

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

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.

For all the west coast Yanks here what remains attached to the wall is the remains of a wooden overhang. This house had seen better days.

[Wickerman]

I think you are wrong in a previous post I made mention of what angle the door was open and still maintain that he could have missed the body dependant on that fact.

I have marked roughly where I think the angle of the door being open would have prevented him seeing the body and he probably kept it open by allowing it to rest against him while he was cutting his boot

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Richardson could not have sat on that second step with his feet on the ground if the door was limited to that degree.

[rjpalmer]

May I ask why you are interested in the colour of the socks/stockings?

The colour of Chapman's stockings will tell me her time-of-death, +/- three minutes.

Sort of...

RJ was not there Christer, Richardson was.
Oh, and so was Kent & Davis.

I'm going to sound like I'm fighting for Christer's side, Wick, but Kent & Davis were already told the body was there, so obviously they would have opened the door until they were able to see it.

All I really argued is that doors don't close by themselves, so Richardson's statement of the self-closing door is a curiosity. And if the door had a door closing mechanism, it wouldn't stand open by itself, either, so I'm not entirely convinced the door ever extended more than half-way, at most.

But I'll leave Christer to fight his own corner.

It might be worth noting, however, that Richardson never DID see Chapman from the perspective of the back steps. He told the inquest that the only time he saw the body was just before the medicos carried it away, and by that time he was standing in the "adjoining yard," by which I take it he meant Cadoche's yard.

How relevant that is, I couldn't say.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. All I really argued is that doors don't close by themselves, so Richardson's statement of the self-closing door is a curiosity

Hello Roger,

I’ve always wondered if that was the kind of door that just swung shut when it got past a certain point? My gran used to have a shed door that did that and the backdoor if number 29 looks more like an uneven, shed type door than one that we would see on a modern house.