Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman’s death.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Inspector Joseph Chandler was the first policeman on the scene when he was informed of the murder at 6:10 a.m. He interviewed John Richardson at about 6:45 that morning and was told "he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

    The Coroner: Did he say anything about cutting his boot?

    Chandler "No." 18

    The Foreman of the jury then made the point that it was possible that the back door, which opened outwards into the yard and towards where the body was lying, obscured the body from view to one just standing at the top of the stairs. If, however, Richardson had gone down into the yard he was bound to see it. Chandler could only reiterate his earlier testimony and answer that Richardson had told him that"he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot." 19



    As ive said all along, Richardsons claim that he sat on the step to cut off his boot strap is at the very least questionable, when we look at what he told insp chandler on the ''VERY MORNING'' of the murder. And he even told the coroner ''TWICE'' how that for being sure of what Richardson said .

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      Agreed. Her head was 6-9 inches from the steps, her body stretched out into the yard and, furthermore, she was wearing red and white stripy stockings. Someone sitting on the second step, with his feet planted on the yard itself, couldn't have missed all that in a million years.
      ...and, of course, her extruded intestines had been draped over, and above, her right shoulder. Given that this gruesome bundle would have been at most perhaps 12 inches from the step, Richardson's left foot would have strayed very close to the intestines, or even IN them.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Clearly not a cold night !

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Here's an extract from the Daily News' summary of that day's inquest;

          "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."

          And here's an extract from Chandler's evidence;

          "Did you see John Richardson? - Later on in the morning, a little before seven o'clock. It was in the passage of 29, Hanbury-street. He told me he had been in the house that morning, about a quarter to five.

          Did he say what for? - He said he went into the back yard and down the cellar to see if all was right, and then went away to his work in the market.

          Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.

          Did he say he was sure the woman was not there? - Yes.

          By the Foreman - Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."

          ​​​​There were two sets of steps; from the house door down to the yard, and from the yard down to the cellar door.


          ​​​​​​

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            So we have an open door and a closed mind.

            Nothing much to do about that.
            In the recent past Fish you’ve bemoaned the fact that certain posters have accused you of bias and et here you are accusing me of having a closed mind. I have stated elsewhere that it’s not absolutely certain that Phillips was wrong only that, from experts, we have the fact that errors could easily occur. When we couple this with Richardson and Cadosch we have a compelling case that he might very well have been wrong.
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              But you have said all of that before, Herlock. And I have pointed out that the body could have been obscured from view, I even posted sketches solidifying this, and R J Palmer checked by making an experiment, telling me I was correct. Why not just accept that it is not impossible at all, or even close to it?

              Yes, we have Long too. And we have Cadosch. Who get the sequence backwards.

              And then we have Phillips.
              And I’m afraid that I don’t consider your sketches as anything approaching proof. It’s simply close to impossible that Richardson would have pushed open the door, then held it open whilst descending the steps and then sat down in a position where he was absolutely adamant that he couldn’t have missed a body whose head was 6-9 inches away. The more I think about it the less plausible it becomes.
              Regards

              Herlock






              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                Inspector Joseph Chandler was the first policeman on the scene when he was informed of the murder at 6:10 a.m. He interviewed John Richardson at about 6:45 that morning and was told "he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

                The Coroner: Did he say anything about cutting his boot?

                Chandler "No." 18

                The Foreman of the jury then made the point that it was possible that the back door, which opened outwards into the yard and towards where the body was lying, obscured the body from view to one just standing at the top of the stairs. If, however, Richardson had gone down into the yard he was bound to see it. Chandler could only reiterate his earlier testimony and answer that Richardson had told him that"he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot." 19



                As ive said all along, Richardsons claim that he sat on the step to cut off his boot strap is at the very least questionable, when we look at what he told insp chandler on the ''VERY MORNING'' of the murder. And he even told the coroner ''TWICE'' how that for being sure of what Richardson said .
                I’m afraid that this is little more than nitpicking. Richardson tells Chandler the reason for his presence in the yard and that he didn’t see the body. He felt that this was enough info. When it was mentioned that if he’d just stood on the top step he might have missed the body he expands and explains that he’d actually sat on the step and that there was no body there.
                Regards

                Herlock






                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                Comment


                • It’s worth remembering that Richardson didn’t have to speak to the police. No one knew that he’d been to number 29 that morning. He returned voluntarily when he was told about the body by someone at the market where he worked. He then placed himself at the crime scene with a knife. He might easily have kept quiet or said that he’d sat on the step and smoked his pipe for five minutes.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    I’m afraid that this is little more than nitpicking. Richardson tells Chandler the reason for his presence in the yard and that he didn’t see the body. He felt that this was enough info. When it was mentioned that if he’d just stood on the top step he might have missed the body he expands and explains that he’d actually sat on the step and that there was no body there.
                    If Phillips stated that the body showed signs of rigor setting in then it is clear that she had not been murdered recently. The truth lies somewhere, either Phillips or the witnesses. My money is on Phillips being correct, and the witnesses well unsafe at the very least.

                    None of the other victims were killed during the early morning

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-14-2019, 11:43 AM.

                    Comment


                    • I’m afraid that this is little more than nitpicking. Richardson tells Chandler the reason for his presence in the yard and that he didn’t see the body. He felt that this was enough info. When it was mentioned that if he’d just stood on the top step he might have missed the body he expands and explains that he’d actually sat on the step and that there was no body there.
                      With respect Herlock, i dont think its nitpicking , im just trying to show what Richardson said, which allows us to come up with a different scenario than just the standard line that he sat on the step yada yada. i think is risky to suggest he felt that was enough info ,one can never really know how he felt and what made him say the things he did , the fact remains we have two different Richardson explanations as to what he did or didnt do that morning, and that changes a lot of thing in regards to the murder of Annie Chapman

                      Lets not forget, it was on the morning of the murder that he spoke to chandler and a full two days later that we first heard about him sitting on the the step cutting his boot . one begs to ask the question why wasn't Richardson asked about the two different statements at the inquest by the coroner ?

                      Comment


                      • Re-looking at the photos of 29 Hanbury St, I'm failing to see how Richardson could've possibly missed the mutilated corpse slumped next to the steps. Richardson had caught trespassers in the yard, that's why he was there: to check that no one had broken into the cellar. He wasn't exactly sleepwalking. I guess it's possible he missed her but I doubt it. However, Dr Phillips' evidence for the TOD is also quite compelling, and I tend to think the Ripper would strike earlier rather than towards daylight when people were shuffling about.

                        Comment


                        • It’s worth remembering that Richardson didn’t have to speak to the police. No one knew that he’d been to number 29 that morning. He returned voluntarily when he was told about the body by someone at the market where he worked. He then placed himself at the crime scene with a knife. He might easily have kept quiet or said that he’d sat on the step and smoked his pipe for five minutes.
                          Again this doesn't prove anything really, the fact Richardson choose for what ever reason to avail himself to the police and then later at the inquest is irrelevant . its the content of what he said that makes all the difference , i think your painting Richardson out to be some guy whos got nothing to hide so he has no reason to lie kind of scenario, which may well be true but it doesn't give us the truth as to which one of the two statements is correct, now does it ?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                            Re-looking at the photos of 29 Hanbury St, I'm failing to see how Richardson could've possibly missed the mutilated corpse slumped next to the steps. Richardson had caught trespassers in the yard, that's why he was there: to check that no one had broken into the cellar. He wasn't exactly sleepwalking. I guess it's possible he missed her but I doubt it. However, Dr Phillips' evidence for the TOD is also quite compelling, and I tend to think the Ripper would strike earlier rather than towards daylight when people were shuffling about.
                            It is possible, if he simply opened the door which swung outwards, and stood on the step glancing towards the cellar and seeing the lock still in place and then leaving. The open door would have likely as not blocked his view of where Chapman lay.

                            There is no definitive answer, other than the coroner it seems accepted Phillips account, as did Swanson, nothing is now going to change that 131 years later. All through the ripper inquests there is evidence of witness testimony conflicting with police and medical testimony.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-14-2019, 12:23 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              It is possible, if he simply opened the door which swung outwards, and stood on the step glancing towards the cellar and seeing the lock still in place and then leaving. The open door would have likely as not blocked his view of where Chapman lay.
                              Just as likely that the cellar roof blocked his view of the door lock from the house doorway. Making it necessary for him to go down the yard steps and stand at the top of the cellar steps.

                              "By the Foreman - Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."



                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                                Again this doesn't prove anything really, the fact Richardson choose for what ever reason to avail himself to the police and then later at the inquest is irrelevant . its the content of what he said that makes all the difference , i think your painting Richardson out to be some guy whos got nothing to hide so he has no reason to lie kind of scenario, which may well be true but it doesn't give us the truth as to which one of the two statements is correct, now does it ?
                                It adds weight to the suggestion that he had nothing to hide. To support Phillips you have to either say that that Richardson lied - for which there’s no proper evidence or that he was mistaken which is unlikely in the absolute extreme. Therefore it’s likely that he was correct and that Annie simply wasn’t there at 4.50. Cadosch supports this.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X