Chapman’s death.

[Abby Normal]

I

Great clip - thanks. I agree totally with you, which means either Johnson was lying, Annie's body was moved or Phillips was wrong about the time of death - I think the latter is most likely, see below.

"If someone dies while engaged in strenuous activity like exercising or struggling against drowning, rigor mortis can set in immediately. This instant onset, sometimes called cadaveric spasm, happens because the person's muscles, at the moment of death, were depleted of oxygen energy and ATP. This is why the victim of a violent attack may still be clutching the attacker's hair or a piece of clothing."

hi eten
whos this Johnson you keep mentioning-do you mean Richardson?

[etenguy]

hi eten
whos this Johnson you keep mentioning-do you mean Richardson?

Sorry, yes - I conflated John Richardson.

[Fisherman]

What?

According to Phillips Chapman was already dead by the time that Cadosch heard something brush against the fence. So are we suggesting that someone else was moving around in that yard entirely innocently with a mutilated corpse lying there?

We are suggesting nothing, we are simply explaining that we don't believe that whatever sound there may or may not have come from the backyard of 29 Hanbury street at the time Cadosch visited the loo could have come from Chapman. The reson being that dead people very rarely fall against fences.

[Fisherman]

And yet there is no body in the yard at 4.45am according to Johnson.

Richardson. And he may have gotten that wrong.

Since he was on his way to work we can be reasonably sure of the time, give or take 10 to 15 minutes. It is unlikely in the extreme he would have missed a corpse.

Unlikely? Perhaps, that depends on the circumstances. Extremely unlikely? Certainly not.

So either he is extremely unobservant, he lied or the body was not there as he states.

Are you able to observe things through doorblades yourself?

If the body was not there, is it your view that is because the murder had not been committed yet or because the murder had been committed elsewhere and moved later - or do you challenge Johnson's testimony?

Richardsons. Yes, I challenge it.

I struggle to discount his testimony but accept he may have not been entirely precise about the time.

His timing will be roughly correct since he said that it was not light but morning was beginning to sift through the darkness. That fits quite well with 4.45.

Cadosch could have heard anything and Long may be mistaken about the identity of the woman she saw, but Johnson's evidence is much harder for me to discount.

Richardsons. And he gave differing accounts, to begin with. Plus, of course, there is a very real possibility that he may have missed the body as has been shown in that sketch of mine and confirmed by R J Palmer - who put it to the test.

[Fisherman]

If you watch this You tube video of James Mason visiting 29 Hanbury St, to me it seems nigh on impossible for John Richardson to miss Annie's Body.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Ko2HJoLxA&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1Rzz1cVED_RzD2F-QxKJVhacYMn0Mp0oT816GmPVlgz_0m7Oq9pA3NogM

Regards Darryl

Well, if Richardson walked out to the spot where Mason stands, cane in hand, then yes, he would reasonably not have missed Chapman. But if he sat on the stairs, turned to the right and with the door making contact with his body, he COULD NOT see Chapman. It would be impossible.

Take a look at that sketch, and you will see.

[Fisherman]

I

Great clip - thanks. I agree totally with you, which means either Johnson was lying, Annie's body was moved or Phillips was wrong about the time of death - I think the latter is most likely, see below.

"If someone dies while engaged in strenuous activity like exercising or struggling against drowning, rigor mortis can set in immediately. This instant onset, sometimes called cadaveric spasm, happens because the person's muscles, at the moment of death, were depleted of oxygen energy and ATP. This is why the victim of a violent attack may still be clutching the attacker's hair or a piece of clothing."

Cadaveric spasm is not rigor. And Chapman was not tense or anything, she had signs of an onsetting rigor as Phillips saw here, and that onsetting rigor then went into a full born rigor in the ensuing hours. The process could be followed.

This is a snippet from the net:
"It has been occasionally observed in cases of sudden death after great and prolonged muscular tension and excitement that the body becomes instantaneously rigid in the position assumed at the moment of dissolution; thus a soldier is killed in action and remains fixed in the position of firing his piece, a lunatic after a prolonged period of excitement is found dead in the exact attitude of a convulsion or some other equally striking condition. Few have probably had the opportunity to observe this phenomenon, but its occurrence is incontestible though it has received little mention in physiologic or medico-legal treatises. Its explanation is not altogether easy on the usual theories of rigor mortis, notwithstanding the fact that the essential conditions are, in part at least, the same."

So with cadaveric spasm, the body as a whole is affected, and it can look similar to rigor mortis - but only a fully developed rigor! In Chapmans case, her "cadaveric spasm" would only have confined itself to the areas where rigor normally sets in, and it would only have started to develop.

All in all, what Philllips observed in Chapman was rigor, it was just commencing and it was confined to the areas where rigor typically commences. She was not frozen stiff à la cadaveric spasm. And Chapmans rigor will have grown to a full-blown one in the ensuing hours!

I do believe that this has been said before, but these things keep cropping up.

Chapman had onsetting rigor. Onsetting rigor occurs after around three hours at the earliest in temperate conditions. It is slowed down by cool conditions and also be asphyxiation and bloodless. A violent death can otherwise hasten it, but the minimum time before onset seems to be three hours, according to Gareths source. Not an hour or less!

[etenguy]

So with cadaveric spasm, the body as a whole is affected, and it can look similar to rigor mortis - but only a fully developed rigor! In Chapmans case, her "cadaveric spasm" would only have confined itself to the areas where rigor normally sets in, and it would only have started to develop.

Good point. Pretty much discounts the possibility of this being what Phillips was faced with.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Well, if Richardson walked out to the spot where Mason stands, cane in hand, then yes, he would reasonably not have missed Chapman. But if he sat on the stairs, turned to the right and with the door making contact with his body, he COULD NOT see Chapman. It would be impossible.

Take a look at that sketch, and you will see.

I have seen the sketch Fish. The problem I have is even if Richardson did what you say the door would not have obstructed her legs coming out further than the steps. There is a gap from the bottom of the door to the bottom of the fence, even if he was facing the cellar door when he sat on the steps, and it is an if, when he would stand up and turn round to go back up the passageway he would surely have noticed said legs protruding from beyond the steps and possibly even her body level with the lower steps. The door does not go all the way to the ground, so only impairs the vision a little. If Annie was propped up against the back wall maybe, but you must remember that Richardson had no doubts that he would have seen her poor body so if he did just look in one direction and might have missed Annie wouldn't he have said so?
Regards Darryl

[Sam Flynn]

Richardson was sitting on the second step, with both feet on the flags of the yard, one of which he'd have lifted at some point to remove and repair his boot. In such a configuration, a person would have their legs spread apart (as opposed to clamped together like a meek Victorian girl), and the door would have to have been at least 90 degrees open, giving Richardson a totally unimpeded view of what lay in front of the bottom step, which would have been directly in his field of vision and practically under his very nose. There's absolutely no question about this, and it's borne out by Richardson's having been so adamant that he could not have missed seeing the body if it had been there at the time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Richardson was sitting on the second step, with both feet on the flags of the yard, one of which he'd have lifted at some point to remove and repair his boot. In such a configuration, a person would have their legs spread apart (as opposed to clamped together like a meek Victorian girl), and the door would have to have been at least 90 degrees open, giving Richardson a totally unimpeded view of what lay in front of the bottom step, which would have been directly in his field of vision and practically under his very nose. There's absolutely no question about this, and it's borne out by Richardson's having been so adamant that he could not have missed seeing the body if it had been there at the time.

But we cannot ignore Phillips saying that rigor had commenced and that is not in line with the TOD of death being recent !

It was not that a cold morning, so the body would not have cooled that quickly, after all she was still fully clothed to an extent

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

We are suggesting nothing, we are simply explaining that we don't believe that whatever sound there may or may not have come from the backyard of 29 Hanbury street at the time Cadosch visited the loo could have come from Chapman. The reson being that dead people very rarely fall against fences.

But if he do did indeed here something from number 29 (with the fence being only a couple of feet away) there can’t really have been an innocent explanation can there? Like someone being in the yard of number 29 for entirely innocent reasons?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, if Richardson walked out to the spot where Mason stands, cane in hand, then yes, he would reasonably not have missed Chapman. But if he sat on the stairs, turned to the right and with the door making contact with his body, he COULD NOT see Chapman. It would be impossible.

Take a look at that sketch, and you will see.

But the door would not have been in the position that you say when he first opened it and walked down the steps. Then you have him sitting in an entirely unnatural position to prove your point. 999 people out it a 1000 would sit looking straight ahead. You might as well say - if he had an exceptionally long fringe combed to the left he might not have seen the corpse.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson was sitting on the second step, with both feet on the flags of the yard, one of which he'd have lifted at some point to remove and repair his boot. In such a configuration, a person would have their legs spread apart (as opposed to clamped together like a meek Victorian girl), and the door would have to have been at least 90 degrees open, giving Richardson a totally unimpeded view of what lay in front of the bottom step, which would have been directly in his field of vision and practically under his very nose. There's absolutely no question about this, and it's borne out by Richardson's having been so adamant that he could not have missed seeing the body if it had been there at the time.

Exactly Sam

We might also add that whilst repairing his shoe it’s likely that his own left arm and elbow would have jutted out whilst holding the shoe. This would have pushed the door further open. There are photographs of course of the door being open and staying open (yes we don’t know if this was a later door) but it gives us the very real possibility that this door stayed open once pushed past a certain point (as many doors do.) If that was the case then surely Richardson would have been likely to have pushed it to stay open rather than having it irritatingly bumping against his left arm as he repaired his shoe?

[Jon Guy]

But the door would not have been in the position that you say when he first opened it and walked down the steps. Then you have him sitting in an entirely unnatural position to prove your point. 999 people out it a 1000 would sit looking straight ahead. You might as well say - if he had an exceptionally long fringe combed to the left he might not have seen the corpse.

I have seen a contemporary news report stating that Richardson was a big Human League fan
It also mentioned that he had a glass left eye
I`ll try and find it.

[Jon Guy]

I have seen a contemporary news report stating that Richardson was a big Human League fan
It also mentioned that he had a glass left eye
I`ll try and find it.

Found it !!

Lloyds Sept 10th 1888:
Our representative spoke to the son of the lady who lived in the house where the murdered woman was found.
John Richardson, a big man peculiarly twisted to the right, swept the long hair back from his face and with his one good eye surveyed the small, muddy yard where the mutilated woman was discovered two days ago.