John Richardson

[Abby Normal]

Mrs Richardson had a lot of previous contact with Chapman she could tell from what she saw who she was identifying there could be no misidentfication because she saw the body in the yard not in the mortuary.

Another pointless argument you have created when there is no argument to be created. This is the second time today i have had to stop you in your tracks just as you are about to go off one.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

,

what is all this "mrs Richardson had alot of previous contact with Chapman" you speak of Trevor?

[DJA]

like constantly referring to someone by an incorrect user name

Thankfully no one is calling you Normal Abby

[Dickere]

There should be no fight. I’m right and Trevor is wrong. There are no ‘might have beens’ or ‘maybes’ about it. Nonsense needs weeding out and I have the ‘hoe of reason.’

That's the spirit, slaphead !

[Abby Normal]

Thankfully no one is calling you Normal Abby

thats for sure Debs! ; )

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM!

The arrival of dawn is not like someone has flicked a switch though.

It is a gradual process.

See attached astronomical definitions;

Dawn – Definition and Meaning (timeanddate.com)

Civil dawn is what we would consider to be typical "dawn" however prior to that there is "nautical dawn" when sea and sky would be distinguishable.

I'd personally consider that a body in the yard right in front of him would be visible during the transition from nautical dawn to civil dawn.

Hi Ms Diddles,

Where are you? I don't mean exact location, rather town, city, country?

Yes, civil twilight is the dawn to which I'm referring.

The reason I asked where you are, is because nautical twilight is hidden in towns and cities due to pollution and clouds.

In the event you live in the country, then, aye, you'd be able to see around a yard prior to dawn. In a city such as London, however, particularly in 1888 due to pollution; it's an altogether different matter.

[JeffHamm]

I didn’t respond originally because this is a point which no reasonable person could possibly take it seriously. But as ever, you never cease to amaze with your exhibitions of bottom-of-the-barrel scraping.

Richardson said:

“I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last.” - For a start he’s saying “went to…” and not “arrived at…” which could indicate that he was basing his time from when he left home. But, that aside…

How many times do we have to hammer home that we can’t pin people down to precise times in the LVP.

Dawn was at 4.51. Are you serious trying to say that he couldn’t have arrived at 4.51 just at dawn or even at 4.52 or 4.53? (Perhaps he’d left his mobile phone at home?)

What did he say “it was getting light..” When did it start getting light? At Dawn.

Do we need to go on with this kind of tripe? It’s genuinely startling when we see the lengths that some are prepared to go to. What’s going on here? Do we have a few members of the Dr. Gandalf Phillips Appreciation Society here?

The "time" for dawn is based upon some calculations as to when the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon. So, those calculations mean at 4:51 the sun reached that point. There would be little appreciable difference in the light levels in the 5 minutes prior to that with respect to our interest in the case, though there would be some of course. Regardless, the sun doesn't move in digital steps, and jump into place, but is an analogue process of movement and so there would be a gradual increase in light levels. Dawn isn't defined by how light it is, but the sun reaching a specific position. How much light there is reflects atomospheric conditions as the sun's light bounces around the atmosphere.

So there's nothing at all suspicious about Richardson being able to see all around him a few minutes before dawn.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sunrise was at 5.25 in September. So how long before that would it be possible to see some light?

I saw this post on another forum. It was posted in July 2016 by someone in London.

I had trouble sleeping last and for the first time in a while I was awake this morning to see the sunrise. Here in London today's sunrise was 4.52, just after 3 I noticed daylight starting to creep though.

So this person saw this daylight around around 1 hour 50 minutes before sunrise. So the equivalent in 1888 would have been 3.35.

…….

Of course we will continue to get this nonsense about Richardson lying. Even though he didn’t have a single reason for doing so and he certainly gained no benefit from it. And yet again we have this presumption of utter stupidity on behalf of the police which is required of course when trying to manipulate the facts to deliberately attempt to discredit a witness. All those police officer’s, the coroner, and the jurors (all early risers no doubt and certainly all locals) and not one single one of them said “hold on, he’s saying it was getting light but it was pitch black at that time!”

With all this talk of lies and discrepancies, it sounds like Richardson could have stood up at the inquest and told them that he’d arrived on an elephant dressed as Oliver Cromwell and no one would have pulled him up on it.

So much nonsense. It’s never ending.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The "time" for dawn is based upon some calculations as to when the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon. So, those calculations mean at 4:51 the sun reached that point. There would be little appreciable difference in the light levels in the 5 minutes prior to that with respect to our interest in the case, though there would be some of course. Regardless, the sun doesn't move in digital steps, and jump into place, but is an analogue process of movement and so there would be a gradual increase in light levels. Dawn isn't defined by how light it is, but the sun reaching a specific position. How much light there is reflects atomospheric conditions as the sun's light bounces around the atmosphere.

So there's nothing at all suspicious about Richardson being able to see all around him a few minutes before dawn.

- Jeff

Thank you for that Jeff.

Cue the wriggling. Modern day medical experts are clueless so I’m guessing that it’s the astrophysicists who don’t know what they’re talking about next or whatever scientist would be the appropriate expert? Absolutely staggering.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Ms Diddles,

Where are you? I don't mean exact location, rather town, city, country?

Yes, civil twilight is the dawn to which I'm referring.

The reason I asked where you are, is because nautical twilight is hidden in towns and cities due to pollution and clouds.

In the event you live in the country, then, aye, you'd be able to see around a yard prior to dawn. In a city such as London, however, particularly in 1888 due to pollution; it's an altogether different matter.

Isn't it strange that in 1888 the East End police didn't realise any of this!

[Fleetwood Mac]

Isn't it strange that in 1888 the East End police didn't realise any of this!

'Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

There was no artificial lighting at the back of 29 Hanbury Street, and London was heavy with air pollution which hides nautical twilight.

Mind you, in truth, I'm not fully convinced with this one because there is no way to prove it and I think Ms Diddles has a point.

It's just not clear cut either way, and so on reflection it's not a significant point.

[Trevor Marriott]

You’ve had to stop me in my tracks? Unbelievable.

You are biased beyond belief Trevor. A woman looks at a horribly mutilated corpse; so bad that she could barely bring herself to look at her face. From this general glance, mainly clothing etc, we get a definite, can’t be questioned ID. Absolutely rubbish. Did they ask all the neighbours and see if anyone could have put a name to this woman so that they could try and locate her? Or are you just making a massive assumption that this door-to-door saleswoman existed in the first place.

And of course, Mrs Long could have lied for her so-called ‘15 minutes or fame’ but Mrs Richardson couldn’t have of course. Because you know that she was entirely honest.

And even if she was right, it means nothing. Except that Chapman knew that number 29 existed.

This is the third time today, Chapmans face was not mutilated and so she was easily identifiable as has been pointed out to you on the previous two ocassions

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM!

The arrival of dawn is not like someone has flicked a switch though.

It is a gradual process.

See attached astronomical definitions;

Dawn – Definition and Meaning (timeanddate.com)

Civil dawn is what we would consider to be typical "dawn" however prior to that there is "nautical dawn" when sea and sky would be distinguishable.

I'd personally consider that a body in the yard right in front of him would be visible during the transition from nautical dawn to civil dawn.

Hi Ms Diddles,

Nautical twilight is described thus:

Begins in the morning, or ends in the evening, when the geometric center of the sun is 12 degrees below the horizon. In general, the term nautical twilight refers to sailors being able to take reliable readings via well known stars because the horizon is still visible, even under moonless conditions. Absent fog or other restrictions, outlines of terrestrial objects may still be discernible, but detailed outdoor activities are likely curtailed without artificial illumination.

What can't be proven/quantified is just how restrictive 1888 London pollution would have been.

Devoid of proof, I can't get too excited about this one and so I'm happy to consign it to the: "a possible issue but lacking the proof to make it worthy of basing a theory around".

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the third time today, Chapmans face was not mutilated and so she was easily identifiable as has been pointed out to you on the previous two ocassions

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And this is the third time I’ve had to state the obvious and I’ve been able to manage it by simply reading.

Mrs. Richardson said: “When I saw the murdered body I was so shocked I did not like to look particularly at her face…”

This doesn’t really sound like someone that closely scrutinised the victims face does it? I don’t know, maybe it’s because the woman had been horrifically mutilated and that she had her throat cut and her intestines thrown over her shoulder? This might have put a damper on her overwhelming desire to closely examine the victims face?

So the reality of the matter is that it would be a very fair bet to say that Elizabeth Long saw Annie Chapman’s face for considerably longer than did Mrs Richardson. Long almost certainly would have been closer and Long absolutely definitely wouldn’t have been reluctant to look at her.

Yet you eliminate Long and accept Richardson.

Also, we have no evidence that what Richardson said was ever investigated or corroborated and yet you accept it at face value. Mr. Unsafe-To-Rely-On appears to be very selective in his criteria on what is reliable and what isn’t.

A more perfect example of the bias that I’ve talked about I can’t recall seeing.

[Trevor Marriott]

what is all this "mrs Richardson had alot of previous contact with Chapman" you speak of Trevor?

Go back and read the posts previous

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn't it strange that in 1888 the East End police didn't realise any of this!

Absolutely relevant Doc.

Police officers and Press who fail to notice huge gaps all along the fence.
A coroner and his jury who fail to spot what’s alleged to have been a piece of utter gobbledegook from Richardson.
Richardson’s dumbass lie placing himself at the crime scene with a knife for no reason.
Cadosch’s pointless lie about hearing a noise from number 29.
A coroner who didn’t know what a caveat was.
Richardson being so much of a dimwit that he didn’t realise that a door can obstruct a view.
The police, the coroner and his jury not realising that it was pitch black when Richardson said it was getting light.
Richardson telling the inquest that he ‘cut off a piece of leather but he couldn’t cut of a piece of leather!’
That if he had wanted to lie about sitting on the steps Richardson was such a moron that he missed the 8 better and more obvious lies that he could have told - ones that your average toddler would have spotted.

All of these ‘points’ that are made in an attempt to manufacture a case for discrediting witnesses appear to have a common thread. Either an assumption of egregious stupidity or an assumption that witnesses told pointless lies that either gained them no advantage or made matters worse for themselves.