Richardson's View

[Trevor Marriott]

When anyone puts Annies death at anytime prior to 5am you still have human voices in the yard at 5:10-5:20. Cadosche heard that when he was just a few feet from the actual spot. Ignoring that simple fact doesnt make it go away.

You have the sound of a voice which Cadosche believes came from 29, the emphasis is believes that is not conclusive testimony, and the other sound some rely heavily on could have emanated from anywhere close by, sound carries in the stillness of the silent morning air.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

When anyone puts Annies death at anytime prior to 5am you still have human voices in the yard at 5:10-5:20. Cadosche heard that when he was just a few feet from the actual spot. Ignoring that simple fact doesnt make it go away.

It’s always baffled me Michael when Cadosch is called ‘unreliable.’ (Except when Trevor says it of course because he thinks everyone was unreliable) I’d go so far as to say that there’s no more reasonable sounding witness in the entire case. And so unless he lied (something we have zero evidence for) Or that the noise from the fence right next to him was the noise from a fence three streets away. Or that the noise was a blind man leaning on next doors fence, what else could it have been? Any effort to discredit Cadosch leaves me wondering ‘what’s the real reason for it?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

However, I would say that one pointer as to what the correct time of death was, is the fact that no other murders were committed as late as 5am when it was almost light in a location where he was likely to have been seen from a window, or disturbed by another from the house who was looking to use the WC. At a time when others were getting up and moving about, and when street prostitutes plying their trade would have likely as not been off the streets by then.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But as we don’t know who the killer was and therefore nothing about his life there might have been any number of reasons for the time. Maybe he’d been disturbed whilst trying earlier? Who can know?

[Michael W Richards]

When anyone puts Annies death at anytime prior to 5am you still have human voices in the yard at 5:10-5:20. Cadosche heard that when he was just a few feet from the actual spot. Ignoring that simple fact doesnt make it go away.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So to conclude all these exchanges we can safely say that having regards to the unsafe testimony of Richardson and Cadosh the TOD cannot be firmly established.

However, I would say that one pointer as to what the correct time of death was, is the fact that no other murders were committed as late as 5am when it was almost light in a location where he was likely to have been seen from a window, or disturbed by another from the house who was looking to use the WC. At a time when others were getting up and moving about, and when street prostitutes plying their trade would have likely as not been off the streets by then.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No! That’s not the case and it’s certainly not what I was saying. I was simply proposing a potential explanation about the knife confusion. That’s all. I have no issue at all with Richardson’s statement that he sat on that step and couldn’t possibly have missed a body had it been there.

Cadosch has even less reason to be doubted. There’s absolutely zero to show that Cadosch was a liar or mistaken apart from your bizarre twists of logic.

No one in this case is trustworthy apart from Feigenbaum’s solicitor I assume? It would be good if you applied the same criteria to all.

[Fisherman]

However, I would say that one pointer as to what the correct time of death was, is the fact that no other murders were committed as late as 5am when it was almost light in a location where he was likely to have been seen from a window, or disturbed by another from the house who was looking to use the WC. At a time when others were getting up and moving about, and when street prostitutes plying their trade would have likely as not been off the streets by then.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I concur on the whole, Trevor. Any explanation that puts the Chapman level with the rest in terms of chronology is well worth pondering. And as you know, my personal take is that we can safely rule out Long and Cadosch, whereas Richardson is a tad more tricky; he only requires a quarter of an hour or so to fit in with Phillipsī estimations. Then again, my money is of course on Chapman having been in place in the backyard for an hour or so when Richardson claimed to have been there. That would put her TOD to around 3.45, and it would fit in very nicely with how the temperature in a dead body is discernible by way of hand for around 4 hours at most and also with how rigor mortis would have had 2 hours and 45 minutes to start developing when Phillips examined the body. Medically, it all fits quite well this way. And I donīt think it was a fluke that Phillips described the blood not as clotted, but as "well clotted" in the backyard. Time would have passed, the way I see it. Others may and will disagree, but that does not take away from the medical logic offered by this perspective. Thereīs also the fact that no observation was made of Chapman during these hours, although, as the papers put it, she really should have been seen and recognized if she had wandered the streets for such a long time.

[Trevor Marriott]

B

Hi Trevor

From my perspective, I think Richardson's testimony is sufficiently confusing that there is reason to question what he told the inquest. However, he was really clear about two important issues, that he could see the whole yard and there was no body there while he was working on his boots. Some are content that the clarity on those two issues is sufficient, but I, like you, approach his statement with caution. I have no issue with Cadosch and Long. I find them both reliable and have no reason to question their honesty or integrity. Just what they saw and heard though is up for question. So I think there is sufficient doubt that I would prefer to rely on the professional opinion of an experienced medic - (but I concede that he could have made a mistake given the inherent difficulties in estimating the time of death). I think that is a long way of saying I agree with you that the TOD cannot be firmly established.

This, I think is quite compelling. We know that JTR took risks, but in a yard of a house with only one exit and with multiple residents who would have been starting to go about their business is exceptionally risky. Though having said that, Stride's murder was in the yard of a busy club while people were in there.

But was Stride a ripper victim?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

So to conclude all these exchanges we can safely say that having regards to the unsafe testimony of Richardson and Cadosh the TOD cannot be firmly established.

However, I would say that one pointer as to what the correct time of death was, is the fact that no other murders were committed as late as 5am when it was almost light in a location where he was likely to have been seen from a window, or disturbed by another from the house who was looking to use the WC. At a time when others were getting up and moving about, and when street prostitutes plying their trade would have likely as not been off the streets by then.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't think that either Richardson or Cadosche have been shown to be untrustworthy Trevor, all that has been demonstrated in these exchanges is that people will try and discredit witnesses whose statements don't conform with their own preferred choices. Setting those accounts aside, 2 witnesses that were within 10 feet of the murder site within a half hour of each other in the critical time frame, with no known reasons to fabricate or misrepresent, means you lose valuable data. Data which can in fact give you an approximate TOD. Read Phillips comments again and tell me if he would be greatly surprised that her temperature dropped dramatically, perhaps misleading any attempts to determine when the injuries were inflicted, during the 45 minutes from when she was cut open until he arrives. He includes that very scenario in his remarks.

So, showing that the TOD estimate given at Inquest could have been incorrect due to the massive blood loss and splayed open condition of the body..acknowledged by the attending physician,..and taking into account that Mrs Long may well have seen Annie with someone but it would not be possible at the time she gives, the only statement that really needs to be nullified is Longs.

All the others work together.

[Fisherman]

Fair points Fish. I still think that it might be a possibility that those at the time heard something that explained the discrepancies though as clarification wasn’t sought. It would only need a couple of words here or there to be omitted. It’s not really an issue that we can get further forward with though.

Thatīs true enough. On the whole, though, I think that inquests avoided going into too much details that were unrelated to the deaths, and that this may well be not only the explanation to why many obviously odd matters were not followed up on but also to whether we are being deprived of any wordings that would have cleared things up. Again, and as you say, we will not be able to find out, but thatīs my take on things anyway.

[etenguy]

So to conclude all these exchanges we can safely say that having regards to the unsafe testimony of Richardson and Cadosh the TOD cannot be firmly established.

Hi Trevor

From my perspective, I think Richardson's testimony is sufficiently confusing that there is reason to question what he told the inquest. However, he was really clear about two important issues, that he could see the whole yard and there was no body there while he was working on his boots. Some are content that the clarity on those two issues is sufficient, but I, like you, approach his statement with caution. I have no issue with Cadosch and Long. I find them both reliable and have no reason to question their honesty or integrity. Just what they saw and heard though is up for question. So I think there is sufficient doubt that I would prefer to rely on the professional opinion of an experienced medic - (but I concede that he could have made a mistake given the inherent difficulties in estimating the time of death). I think that is a long way of saying I agree with you that the TOD cannot be firmly established.

However, I would say that one pointer as to what the correct time of death was, is the fact that no other murders were committed as late as 5am when it was almost light in a location where he was likely to have been seen from a window, or disturbed by another from the house who was looking to use the WC. At a time when others were getting up and moving about, and when street prostitutes plying their trade would have likely as not been off the streets by then.www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This, I think is quite compelling. We know that JTR took risks, but in a yard of a house with only one exit and with multiple residents who would have been starting to go about their business is exceptionally risky. Though having said that, Stride's murder was in the yard of a busy club while people were in there.

[Trevor Marriott]

Fair points Fish. I still think that it might be a possibility that those at the time heard something that explained the discrepancies though as clarification wasn’t sought. It would only need a couple of words here or there to be omitted. It’s not really an issue that we can get further forward with though.

So to conclude all these exchanges we can safely say that having regards to the unsafe testimony of Richardson and Cadosh the TOD cannot be firmly established.

However, I would say that one pointer as to what the correct time of death was, is the fact that no other murders were committed as late as 5am when it was almost light in a location where he was likely to have been seen from a window, or disturbed by another from the house who was looking to use the WC. At a time when others were getting up and moving about, and when street prostitutes plying their trade would have likely as not been off the streets by then.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, if I may?

1) If we can see that why did no one at the time point that out?

When Lechmere testified, there were things that should be examined closer, but werenīt. Like how he supposedly said that another PC was in place ( a juror asked about it, had it denied, and that was it), like how he had taken twice as long time as he should have to reach Bucks Row from Doveton Street and so on. Basically, I think that we must weigh in that an inquest aimed to establish the cause of death and not to find the killer. Anomalies were more likely to be brushed to the side. One example is how Baxter amended the timings for Long and Cadosch in retrospect. After that, it was the task of the police to decide which path of investigation to go down, and they chose not to buy Baxters suggestion.
In essence, they may have thought the knife business odd, but their task was another one.

2) Why would Richardson think that he could get away with bringing the wrong knife when asked for the one that he’d used?

It may (whether we think so or not) be that Richardson actually did sit down on the steps and that he actually did try and cut leather with the scrappy knife - and failed. Up until the moment he was sent off to fetch the knife, it had not been established that he had not been able to cut the leather with it, and so the coroner could not tell him to get the knife he actually used when slicing the leather away, could he?
Richardson fetched the knife he had spoken of, because that was the knife he was asked to fetch. Apart from Richardson, noone knew of the other knife at this stage.

3) Why, when he apparently brought the wrong knife to the Inquest, did the Coroner not send him to fetch the correct knife?

Because Richardson could not fetch it. It was not his own knife, he had borrowed a knife at the market. And, of course, I donīt agree that Richardson had fetched the wrong knife - he had fetched the correct knife, the only one that was at play at the murder site, courtesy of Richardson.

Fair points Fish. I still think that it might be a possibility that those at the time heard something that explained the discrepancies though as clarification wasn’t sought. It would only need a couple of words here or there to be omitted. It’s not really an issue that we can get further forward with though.

[Fisherman]

Herlock, if I may?

1) If we can see that why did no one at the time point that out?

When Lechmere testified, there were things that should be examined closer, but werenīt. Like how he supposedly said that another PC was in place ( a juror asked about it, had it denied, and that was it), like how he had taken twice as long time as he should have to reach Bucks Row from Doveton Street and so on. Basically, I think that we must weigh in that an inquest aimed to establish the cause of death and not to find the killer. Anomalies were more likely to be brushed to the side. One example is how Baxter amended the timings for Long and Cadosch in retrospect. After that, it was the task of the police to decide which path of investigation to go down, and they chose not to buy Baxters suggestion.
In essence, they may have thought the knife business odd, but their task was another one.

2) Why would Richardson think that he could get away with bringing the wrong knife when asked for the one that he’d used?

It may (whether we think so or not) be that Richardson actually did sit down on the steps and that he actually did try and cut leather with the scrappy knife - and failed. Up until the moment he was sent off to fetch the knife, it had not been established that he had not been able to cut the leather with it, and so the coroner could not tell him to get the knife he actually used when slicing the leather away, could he?
Richardson fetched the knife he had spoken of, because that was the knife he was asked to fetch. Apart from Richardson, noone knew of the other knife at this stage.

3) Why, when he apparently brought the wrong knife to the Inquest, did the Coroner not send him to fetch the correct knife?

Because Richardson could not fetch it. It was not his own knife, he had borrowed a knife at the market. And, of course, I donīt agree that Richardson had fetched the wrong knife - he had fetched the correct knife, the only one that was at play at the murder site, courtesy of Richardson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson:

"I kept the knife upstairs at John-street"



Does 'upstairs' mean 'outside' to you?






I have to disappoint you, but this is not the end of it.

The rabbit is connected to the testimony of Richardson which is connected to the TOD.

They are those small details that tell the tails.


No wonder you don't feel them important.



The Baron

I don’t feel them important because they aren’t important. He had a rabbit....so what......how he acquired it or how long he’d had it or what colour it was or why Richardson fed it chopped up carrots or in which area he kept the knife are only relevant issues to someone trying to twist them to try and make them appear sinister.

Youve already tried to dismiss Richardson by using a joke quote about him having one good eye, long hair and a body twisted to the right.

Then you tried to dismiss him on the grounds that he ‘might’ have suffered from epilepsy.

And of course you’ve tried to make it sound weird that a man should keep a rabbit.

Instead of looking at the issues reasonably you are simply trying any desperate measure to try and dismiss Richardson as a witness.

~~~~

It’s pretty obvious Baron that your bunny obsession is simply a distraction. We’re all aware of the issue with the testimony regarding the knife but it’s noticeable that you make no attempt to respond to the 3 questions below.

. 1) If we can see that why did no one at the time point that out?

2) Why would Richardson think that he could get away with bringing the wrong knife when asked for the one that he’d used?

3) Why, when he apparently brought the wrong knife to the Inquest, did the Coroner not send him to fetch the correct knife?

We can’t answer based on known facts but we can postulate. As we know that reporting wasn’t always accurate the issues with the 3 questions above would all cease to be issues if those at the time were aware of an explanation.

Or then again perhaps the rabbit switched the knives?

[The Baron]

It might very well have been kept near to where the rabbit was kept. The fact that it was broken would explain why it might have been left outside.

Richardson:

"I kept the knife upstairs at John-street"



Does 'upstairs' mean 'outside' to you?

He fed a rabbit.....this should be end of. The rabbit has no connection to these events.

I have to disappoint you, but this is not the end of it.

The rabbit is connected to the testimony of Richardson which is connected to the TOD.

They are those small details that tell the tails.


No wonder you don't feel them important.



The Baron