Richardson's View

[DJA]

Have a peep at Teclast M30 X27 online.
Yet to get mine picked up from the post office.
Oz$200.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

[John Richardson, Inquest testimony]—"I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then."

Viz: Annie Chapman's body was not there at the time.

The notion that Richardson was telling the truth is equally self-serving. It supports the nonsensical scenario put together by Mrs. Long, Albert Cadosch and Wynne Baxter.

Stay well.

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have a peep at Teclast M30 X27 online.
Yet to get mine picked up from the post office.
Oz$200.

Mine’s been recovered so I’m getting it back soon. My phone was damaged though but I’m not so bothered about that.

[DJA]

Hi Jon,

[John Richardson, Inquest testimony]—"I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then."

Viz: Annie Chapman's body was not there at the time.

The notion that Richardson was telling the truth is equally self-serving. It supports the nonsensical scenario put together by Mrs. Long, Albert Cadosch and Wynne Baxter.

Stay well.

Simon

Mrs. Long's testimony holds up quite well.

[Simon Wood]

Mrs. Long's testimony holds up quite well, compared to what?

[Kattrup]

Considering that your argument amounts to saying "If he said he believed he should have seen her if she was there, then that must be taken as a fact", I can´t say that I am very flummoxed by your "point", Kattrup.

Then again, I rarely find cause to award much interest to your musings.

Actually, the counterargument "he could have been wrong" is a very good counterargument when it can be shown that the doorblade actually could have obscured the view of Chapman, lying in the dark.

And to boot, that is not the only counterargument presented, is it? There is also the fact that the papers reported on how the police seemingly found Richardson unreliable, and speculated that the body would likely have been in place before the time Richardson claimed to have been there. And that Richardson could have lied, no less!

Given these things, I´d say that the question "how is that a debate at all" should be put to you instead. How is it any debate to say "No, nope, he must have been right, and it cannot be challenged"...?

I find that a much less informed view; gulping down what questioned witnesses say as if it was strawberry cake is not advisable in my world.

My aim is not to flummox you, but to point out to others reading the boards why you are wrong.

As for gulping down questioned witnesses, why not take a look at the Constable Long matter:

the rag could well have been in a position that made it eaasier to see from one side than from the other. However, that does not change the fact that Long was very clear in answering the coroner:
Coroner: Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?
Long: It was not.
In this exchange, we may note that the coroner actually asks about the very thing you are speaking about: the visibility of the rag, and whether Long was able to say whether the rag was in place or not at 2.20. Long is asked whether he had been in a position that enabled him to decide the matter, and in answering "It was not", he also offers an answer to the question actually asked: Were the surrounding circumstances such as to allow for Long to make a definite call? And he answers that question with an implicit "Yes, they were".

The body could well have been in a position that made it easier to see from one side than from the other. However, that does not change the fact that Richardson was very clear in answering the coroner:
Coroner: You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found?
Richardson: Yes, I must have seen her.
In this exchange, we may note that the coroner implicitly asks the very thing you are speaking about: the visibility of the body, and whether Richardson was able to say whether the body was in place or not at 4.45. Richardson is asked whether he had been in a position that enabled him to decide the matter, and in answering "I must have seen her", he also offers an answer to the question actually asked: Were the surrounding circumstances such as to allow for Richardson to make a definite call? And he answers that question with an implicit "Yes, they were".

[Curious Cat]

I don´t 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.

The level of light changes from the point it starts to get light and sunrise. The change is continuous and differs depending on the time of year. Sunrise on that morning was 5:22am. The natural light in east London in September at around 4:45am (or 5:45am going by BST) is well enough to see any sizable object on that spot let alone a dead body. That hasn't changed in 132 years so it's very much an objective observation rather than a personal opinion.

Anyone then as of now would understand the level of light at that time of day at that time of year. It would be an incredulous suggestion that Richardson would not have been able to see Annie Chapman's body from his position on the step in that level of light. If Richardson's eye sight was that bad that he missed the body then he did well not to cut his own fingers off when cutting his boot leather.

The body wasn't there to be seen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

T

Phillips allowed for the very short time of two hours, but he did not believe in it as such. He would be an idiot to claim that two hours was the minimum, and then, one second later, allow for anything latter day ripperologists fancied to make their dreams come true.

It is out of the question that Long and Cadosch saw or heard Chapman alive.

This notion that Phillips couldn’t have been wrong was put to bed ages ago Fish. You said at the time that you were going away to look into it further and yet you haven’t returned with any refutations because there are none. There’s no need for us to go back over this old ground though because the evidence is overwhelming that Phillips could easily have been wrong and the witnesses point to the suggestion that it was overwhelmingly likely that he was. Even the Coroner agreed that he was probably wrong.
Theres no valid reason to suggest Richardson lied and no reason to doubt that he wouldn’t have been fully aware of the possibility of a door hiding a body if that possibility existed and he was confident that it didn’t. The light is irrelevant.
Theres also no valid reason to suggest that Cadosch lied either. Could he have been mistaken? Anything’s ‘possible’ but his caution about the voices doesn’t smack of someone making unfounded claims.
We all have our own opinions of course but was the body there when Richardson sat on that step. Personally I’d say say 99% ‘not.’

[rjpalmer]

The natural light in east London in September at around 4:45am (or 5:45am going by BST) is well enough to see any sizable object on that spot let alone a dead body. That hasn't changed in 132 years so it's very much an objective observation rather than a personal opinion.

Hello Curious Cat. What about light pollution?

There isn't any purely natural light in London anymore, and cities aren't as dark as they were 132 years ago, whether at dawn or in the middle of the night. The conditions have changed. Scientists even discuss it as a possible health concern.

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/119053...tion-night-sky

It's worth scrolling down far enough to see the difference in a typical L.A. street before and after conversion to LED lighting, just as an example of what we might be up against.

I think any any meaningful recreation of the lighting conditions in East London in 1888 would have to take place in the near wild, far away from any major city. I can say from personal experience that nights in remote areas of the South Pacific have no resemblance to nights on the continental U.S.A. There is night, and there is NIGHT.

Would the dawn be precisely the same? I doubt it.

(not that I'm not aware of Richardson's claim to be able to 'see all around')

[Curious Cat]

Hello Curious Cat. What about light pollution?

There isn't any purely natural light in London anymore, and cities aren't as dark as they were 132 years ago, whether at dawn or in the middle of the night. The conditions have changed. Scientists even discuss it as a possible health concern.

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/119053...tion-night-sky

It's worth scrolling down far enough to see the difference in a typical L.A. street before and after conversion to LED lighting, just as an example of what we might be up against.

I think any any meaningful recreation of the lighting conditions in East London in 1888 would have to take place in the near wild, far away from any major city. I can say from personal experience that nights in remote areas of the South Pacific have no resemblance to nights on the continental U.S.A. There is night, and there is NIGHT.

Would the dawn be precisely the same? I doubt it.

(not that I'm not aware of Richardson's claim to be able to 'see all around')

That relates to light pollution which occurs at night time before the onset of dawn. Natural light begins to increase over an hour before actual sunrise. It's unaffected by artificial light.

Sunrise on 7th September 1888 was at the same time as it was on 7th September 2020. The only difference is that in 1888 it was recorded 5:22am GMT while this year it was recorded at 6:22am BST. The increase of natural light leading into both sunrises would have been at the same rate.

[Simon Wood]

Who cares about the time of twilight and sunrise?

[Coroner] Was it light?

[John Richardson] It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.

[rjpalmer]

That relates to light pollution which occurs at night time before the onset of dawn. Natural light begins to increase over an hour before actual sunrise. It's unaffected by artificial light.

Well, I don't wish to argue about it, but songbirds disagree.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4375366/

Simon - point taken, but I'm interested in the lighting conditions of East London in 1888.

As much as Christer and others are depicted as crackpots, Phil Sugden, who is generally regarded as not being a crackpot, seems to suggest that Inspector Chandler and Dr. Phillips were the persuasive ones, the time of death being accepted as the middle of the night, and thus Elizabeth Long was dropped as a reliable witness.

Rather than revisionists, Christer & Co. seem to be toeing the H-Division party line.

But I have bigger worries. Ruth Ginsberg just died, and the election will now spin out of control.

Take good care.

[Curious Cat]

Who cares about the time of twilight and sunrise?

[Coroner] Was it light?

[John Richardson] It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.

I was pointing out the level of light Richardson was referring to and agreeing that it was sufficient to be able to see a whether a body was there or not.

[Curious Cat]

Well, I don't wish to argue about it, but songbirds disagree.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4375366/

Simon - point taken, but I'm interested in the lighting conditions of East London in 1888.

As much as Christer and others are depicted as crackpots, Phil Sugden, who is generally regarded as not being a crackpot, seems to suggest that Inspector Chandler and Dr. Phillips were the persuasive ones, the time of death being accepted as the middle of the night, and thus Elizabeth Long was dropped as a reliable witness.

Rather than revisionists, Christer & Co. seem to be toeing the H-Division party line.

But I have bigger worries. Ruth Ginsberg just died, and the election will now spin out of control.

Take good care.

Important word there... night.

Artificial light during the dark hours.

Increase of natural light pre-sunrise isn't affected.

Richardson would've been at the back door after the increase of natural light had begun. That's the point.

[The Baron]

Richardson said he went to the yard at 4:45-4:50 a.m

The sun in London at this time on 8 September is at -15.3 to -14.6 degree below the horizon, and this is the Astronomical twilight.

Astronomical twilight is the darkest of the 3 twilight phases. It is the earliest stage of dawn in the morning.

During Astronomical twilight, the geometric center of the Sun's disk is between 12 and 18 degrees below the horizon.

"Astronomical Twilight

Begins in the morning, or ends in the evening, when the geometric center of the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon. In astronomical twilight, sky illumination is so faint that most casual observers would regard the sky as fully dark, especially under urban or suburban light pollution. Under astronomical twilight, the horizon is not discernible and moderately faint stars or planets can be observed with the naked eye under a non light polluted sky"

https://www.weather.gov/fsd/twilight

That means Richardson was not there at the time he described he could see all over the yard.




The Baron