Richardson's View

[The Baron]

If he could see all over the place as he testified, that means he was there during the Civil twilight, and whether one accepts the early or the late TOD, the body was there during the Civil twilight (begins at 5:50 am) , and that proves Richardson missed the body completely.

I think we can ignore Richardson as an unreliable witness.



The Baron

[Curious Cat]

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

If he could see all over the place as he testified, that means he was there during the Civil twilight, and whether one accepts the early or the late TOD, the body was there during the Civil twilight (begins at 5:50 am) , and that proves Richardson missed the body completely.

I think we can ignore Richardson as an unreliable witness.



The Baron

You've forgotten that BST didn't exist in 1888. You have to knock off an hour from the time.

https://www.suntoday.org/sunrise-sun...ptember/8.html


Nautical Twilight began about 4:10am and Civil Twilight started about 4:50am that morning.

There was enough natural light around 4:45am to see and distinguish whether a body was there or not.

[The Baron]

You've forgotten that BST didn't exist in 1888. You have to knock off an hour from the time.

https://www.suntoday.org/sunrise-sun...ptember/8.html


Nautical Twilight began about 4:10am and Civil Twilight started about 4:50am that morning.

There was enough natural light around 4:45am to see and distinguish whether a body was there or not.

Thank you Curious Cat, that makes sense, and agree, if we have to add 1 hour to the 1888 timing then there will be enough light to see the place.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

And so we have no reason to suggest that Richardson was an unreliable witness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The face was turned to the right side, and the left arm was resting on the left breast. The right hand was lying down the right side. Deceased's legs were drawn up, and the clothing was above the knees. A portion of the intestines, still connected with the body, were lying above the right shoulder, with some pieces of skin.

With her head turned to the right this leaves what....around 2-3 inches of shoulder? Even less if her head was tilted in any way. With a portion of the intestines and some pieces of skin in that very small space above her right shoulder doesn’t that suggest that these intestines would have been ‘sticking out’ from the right hand side of Annie’s body further increasing the chances of the body being seen?

[Wickerman]

Thank you Curious Cat, that makes sense, and agree, if we have to add 1 hour to the 1888 timing then there will be enough light to see the place.



The Baron

Happy to see 'we' finally got there...

[Wickerman]

With her head turned to the right this leaves what....around 2-3 inches of shoulder? Even less if her head was tilted in any way. With a portion of the intestines and some pieces of skin in that very small space above her right shoulder doesn’t that suggest that these intestines would have been ‘sticking out’ from the right hand side of Annie’s body further increasing the chances of the body being seen?

Not forgetting those red & white striped stockings.
There's a reason traffic signs are red & white today, yet we are supposed to believe she couldn't be seen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not forgetting those red & white striped stockings.
There's a reason traffic signs are red & white today, yet we are supposed to believe she couldn't be seen.

Exactly Wick

[Fisherman]

I think you missed my point Christer.
This argument suggests the police missed a liar because modern theorists have decided Richardson's testimony is false, so he must be lying. Yet, the police did not arrive at that conclusion.
To date, not one modern accusation of lying against a witness has been proven to be true. They are all self-serving accusations because certain testimony does not fit a personal theory.

Violena was proven a liar - but, of course, it is not a "modern accusation". However, it does tell us something that we should already be aquainted with: that witnesses sometimes tell porkies, for whatever reason. Violena did it on account of a sich wish to see a dead body, while a more common reason would be a wish to get those fifteen minutes of fame. Millerīs Court was full of women who claimed that they had heard the cry "Murder!" at various points of time, and it was decided that they were not telling the truth.

There is the very contemporary Star article from the 13:th, stating that "Considerable doubt is being thrown on the evidence of John Richardson, who stated that he was almost on the exact spot where the body was found at a quarter to five on Saturday morning, and no signs of the murder were then apparent. It is now beginning to be believed that the woman was brought to the backyard in Hanbury-street some time earlier."

This means that it was beleived that Richardsons story was not true.

Of course, if you demand that I prove that Richardson was lying before I can suggest the possibility on as completely relevant grounds as the Star article, then you will win the day. But I donīt think that is the best way to go about things. I think that whenever there is justifiable doubt about something, that doubt must be added to the equation, becasue otherwise we will decide on incomplete grounds.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman has not referred to the article on TB that I mentioned.

Difficult to tell if by incompetence or dishonesty.

We all are at liberty to make our own calls about such things, DJA. You would not be the first to imply dishonesty on my behalf. It has been suggested that I have taken part in misinforming the experts in "The Missing Evidence" documentary, for example. When I toop part in a fundraiser in 2011 involving a presentation of the case against Lechmere, it was said that I did it to line my pockets, while in fact I volunteered to participate with no salary at all and payed my own flight to London. Iīve been called a liar of a number of posters out here who I am relieved to say do not belong to the ones who I would beleive myself without checking first, but nevertheless; it is an easy thing to do, to call other posters liars and dishonest, and the barriers that most peoiple used to have pre-internet seem to have gone lost somewhere along the road.

Personally, I would say that I am perfectly honest - but then again, why would you accept that from somebody who others have branded dishonest? Hm?

Now, I am not sure which article it is you are speaking of, and I must admit that I kind of lost the will to debate with you on the grounds inplied by this post, but if you will be so good as to tell me what article you are speaking of and provide me with a link, I promise to take a look at it and comment on it too.

[Fisherman]

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

So try again, Kattrup!

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

That really seems to nag you? Long WAS spefically asked whether he was able to tell if the rag was in place or not. Richardson was NOT specifially asked if he was able to tell that Chapmans body had been in place in the recess. Baxter asks if Richardson was close to the body, and we all know that he was. There has never been any question at all about that. Itīs another matter that he must not have seen the body anyway. You can be an inch from a body and bot see it, if that inch is made up of a doorblade.

In conclusion, Baxter does NOT "implicitly ask the very thing" I speak about in the Long case. Itīs not as if Baxter asked Long ""You must have been quite close to where the rag was?", is it? He effectively asks him if he was able to tell if it was there before or not, and to be able to tell that, Long MUST have checked the exact spot on his former round.

So, veeeery far from you showing people that I am wrong, what it amount to is ME telling ... yeah, exactly.

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".

Nope. He asks Richardson "Would the lacking light have caused you to miss the body if you looked in that direction?" And he asks Richardson "You really must have been very close to the body?" and Richardson therefore gives his answer to a question that was never asked. And yes, he is sure he would have seen her, but he never says that he looked in the recess. That is the sour pill you are left to suck on, Iīm afraid.

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, The body was there to be seen. I agree!

Yes, Richardson would have been able to see it in the prevailing light conditions. I agree!

But no, there is no evidence telling us that Richardson looked in the direction she was lying. But if he DID throw part of a small glance to his left, then THAT is where the light conditions come in, because gloom is not the best condition avaliable for picking up on things.

Think of it like this: You and me both step into pne copy each of the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. We are both told that there is a key lying in the yard. I get to look in full daylight, while you get to look in gloom.

Who do you think is most likely to find the key first? Correct: I am! And is that becasue you are not able to make out your key? No, it is becasue the gloom you work under reduces your capability of making things out as easily as they are made out in daylight.

I hope that helps to explain what I am talking about.

[Fisherman]

T

This notion that Phillips couldn’t have been wrong was put to bed ages ago Fish.

It does not sleep in my house, Herlock. And in my guidebook, tourists are adviced not to use your lodgings.

[Fisherman]

And so we have no reason to suggest that Richardson was an unreliable witness.

Then why is it that the Star told us that this was the precise view that was taken? I doubt it had to do with the lighting conditions.

[Fisherman]

With her head turned to the right this leaves what....around 2-3 inches of shoulder? Even less if her head was tilted in any way. With a portion of the intestines and some pieces of skin in that very small space above her right shoulder doesn’t that suggest that these intestines would have been ‘sticking out’ from the right hand side of Annie’s body further increasing the chances of the body being seen?

My take on things is that Chapman could have filled the recess between stairs and fence entirely and Richardson would not have seen her anyway if the door was not far enough out to the left to allow for peaking under it. It all hinges to a very large degree on where Richardson head was, how high up and how close to the doorblade.