John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Ms Diddles,

What we really need is a witness statement of what it was like at dawn.

Between Dr Lewellyn and PC Neil, we hear that is was dark approx. half an hour before dawn when there was a street lamp at the end of Buck's Row.

You would have to assume it would have been at least equally dark at the back of 29 Hanbury Street given there was no artificial lighting.

That being said, half an hour before dawn doesn't tell us what it was like at dawn.

I live in the country, and 'round the back of my house there is no artificial lighting, but using that as a gauge wouldn't tell us anything because it's not Victorian London when air pollution was at its peak.

I've been looking around for witness statements at the break of dawn, but so far no luck and I'm a bit busy with stuff, e.g. photo editing wildlife pictures and the like, but it is one I'm going to come back to and do a bit more digging.

Or……..we could realise that all the police officers, the coroner, the jurors, the press and everyone that read a newspaper were all around at that time and in London and not a single one of them said “hold on, it was pitch black at 4.45 so why was he saying that it wasn’t.”

[GBinOz]

Not if Richardson was the Ripper. In fact, to me "Evidence, logic reason and common sense" tell me Richardson was in fact the Ripper and possibly TK.

Hi Mac3,

If he were the Ripper that would, hopefully(?), remove the "why would he lie" defence. And what about that admitting to carrying a knife thing? Well judge, look at the thing. It's only good for cutting carrots for the rabbit, and it could barely do that. It couldn't have been used to butcher a human being! It wasn't even sharp enough to cut leather from my boot - I had to borrow another sharp knife for that. And truly, this is the knife I was carrying that morning....honestly....please believe me...why would I lie?

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

If we base the evidence of the Drs in 1888 as being unreliable by using the argument of modern day medical experts ,who are in agreement/suggest that Victorian Drs estimates of t.o.d shouldnt be trusted or labeled ''guesswork'' .

Then by the same token the witnesses in 1888, who by Georges post #1320 in regards to ''Unsafe Testimony'' using the same modern day experts analysis and examples ,should by definition come under the same if not equal scrutiny, should they not ?

How then is is possible using the same modern day experts in both fields for each case , that the witness evidence vs the Drs medical opinion solely in regards to the Chapman murder is judged to be Massively'' in favour over the Drs ?????

Sorry i dont buy that one for a second .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mac3,

If he were the Ripper that would, hopefully(?), remove the "why would he lie" defence. And what about that admitting to carrying a knife thing? Well judge, look at the thing. It's only good for cutting carrots for the rabbit, and it could barely do that. It couldn't have been used to butcher a human being! It wasn't even sharp enough to cut leather from my boot - I had to borrow another sharp knife for that. And truly, this is the knife I was carrying that morning....honestly....please believe me...why would I lie?

Cheers, George

Where did you get the point that it was barely good enough for cutting carrots George?

Where did Richardson say specifically that he couldn’t cut leather with that knife?

Why would he lie? It’s not a question worth asking because he transparently didn’t lie.

[FISHY1118]

We haven’t ‘covered’ Richardson. Some people have invented discrepancies, that’s all. Remove the fantasies and the bias and there’s no case against him.

I know what ambiguity means Fishy. Just because people are coming up with works of fantasy to try and create doubts it doesn’t mean that those doubts are serious ones. Richardson is an exceptionally strong witness. He alone puts it and 80% at the very least. Add Cadosch and add Long and it’s game over. The chances of Phillips being right? Less than 5% being generous.

I dont see anyone inventing discrepancies , i just see the evidence ,nor do i see anyone coming up with any fantasies in regards to Richardson either.

My point is and has always been witness testimony as whole in regards to the Chapman murder t.o.d 5.30am is unsafe, unreilable, contradictory in some cases and in J.R case ambiguious. It would be dangerous to claim an accurate t.o.d at 5.30am based in these witnesses statements

[Herlock Sholmes]

If we base the evidence of the Drs in 1888 as being unreliable by using the argument of modern day medical experts ,who are in agreement/suggest that Victorian Drs estimates of t.o.d shouldnt be trusted or labeled ''guesswork'' .

Then by the same token the witnesses in 1888, who by Georges post #1320 in regards to ''Unsafe Testimony'' using the same modern day experts analysis and examples ,should by definition come under the same if not equal scrutiny, should they not ?

How then is is possible using the same modern day experts in both fields for each case , that the witness evidence vs the Drs medical opinion solely in regards to the Chapman murder is judged to be Massively'' in favour over the Drs ?????

Sorry i dont buy that one for a second .

Who is saying that witnesses shouldn’t be scrutinised? I’m just saying that they should be scrutinised honestly and without invention or manipulation. But that’s not happening in some quarters by some who, for some inexplicable reason, are determined to try and discredit them in favour of Phillips.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I dont see anyone inventing discrepancies , i just see the evidence ,nor do i see anyone coming up with any fantasies in regards to Richardson either.

My point is and has always been witness testimony as whole in regards to the Chapman murder t.o.d 5.30am is unsafe, unreilable, contradictory in some cases and in J.R case ambiguious. It would be dangerous to claim an accurate t.o.d at 5.30am based in these witnesses statements

What about the invention of a discrepancy between what Chandler said that Richardson had said in the passage way? How often has that one been used on here?

Richardson isn’t ambiguous. He’s not approaching ambiguous.

[FISHY1118]

Who is saying that witnesses shouldn’t be scrutinised? I’m just saying that they should be scrutinised honestly and without invention or manipulation. But that’s not happening in some quarters by some who, for some inexplicable reason, are determined to try and discredit them in favour of Phillips.

Thats a fair call, i agree both the witnesses and Dr Phillipps should come under scrutiny equally. I dont have a problem with that . I do however think some have the witnesses way to far in favour of a 5.30am t.o.d when from what what i can see with all the testmony as a whole, is far from that conclusion .

[FISHY1118]

What about the invention of a discrepancy between what Chandler said that Richardson had said in the passage way? How often has that one been used on here?

Richardson isn’t ambiguous. He’s not approaching ambiguous.

Well im fully aware what Chandler said at the inquest ,im looking at it right now and i know what Richardson told Chandler he did on the morning as well. ,You wont see me posting anything different when i refer to that meeting on the morning of the murder [ least i hope i havent ].

Richardson... Ambiguous well ill stick with that. As the definition of the word i posted suggest to me just that . You dont agree fine .

[GBinOz]

Where did you get the point that it was barely good enough for cutting carrots George?

Where did Richardson say specifically that he couldn’t cut leather with that knife?

Why would he lie? It’s not a question worth asking because he transparently didn’t lie.

Herlock my friend, I was addressing Mac3's suggestion that Richardson may have been the Ripper. Answer honestly, if he were the Ripper do you think he might have lied?

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Who can really tell what a woman who is desperate for cash might or might not do? When she bumped into her killer it might have been very close to number 29 and Chapman might just have thought “well I’m only going to be there for 5 minutes tops so what are the chances of Mrs. R herself popping into the yard at exactly that time?” The killer might not have been keen to go walking around looking for another spot?

There you go again coming out with nothing more than conjecture lets stick to the facts

In all my days when I was working in vice did I come across any prostitute plying her trade as late as 5am so I find it hard to accept that Chapman was doing just that at that time of the morning when the streets were filled with people up and out moving about, and given all the other murders took place much earlier why would the killer take such a huge risk by changing his MO? I dont buy a later TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock my friend, I was addressing Mac3's suggestion that Richardson may have been the Ripper. Answer honestly, if he were the Ripper do you think he might have lied?

Cheers, George

Of course. If I misunderstood your post then I apologise with no problem George.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There you go again coming out with nothing more than conjecture lets stick to the facts

In all my days when I was working in vice did I come across any prostitute plying her trade as late as 5am (and I’m guessing that you never came into contact with any Victorian-era prostitutes either? There situation was different from today. There are also no doss houses around.)so I find it hard to accept that Chapman was doing just that at that time of the morning when the streets were filled with people up and out moving about, and given all the other murders took place much earlier why would the killer take such a huge risk by changing his MO? I dont buy a later TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well a later TOD is what the evidence points to. And….

If Chapman hadn’t managed to find a client to get her doss money then she would have been on the streets. Wherever she was heading for, if she’d bumped into a prospective client do you think that she’d have just walked past him because she’d clocked off? Or would she have tried her luck? And how can you possibly know the killers circumstances on that day? People lived hand-to-mouth often taking a days work here or 2 days there so how can you know that the killer hadn’t just finished a nights work and was on his way home when he bumped into Annie?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well im fully aware what Chandler said at the inquest ,im looking at it right now and i know what Richardson told Chandler he did on the morning as well. ,You wont see me posting anything different when i refer to that meeting on the morning of the murder [ least i hope i havent ].

Because you know that the point has been refuted.

Richardson... Ambiguous well ill stick with that. As the definition of the word i posted suggest to me just that . You dont agree fine .

It’s up to you. If John Richardson is ambiguous then I’d say that there’s pretty much no such thing as a good witness.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Ms Diddles,

What we really need is a witness statement of what it was like at dawn.

Between Dr Lewellyn and PC Neil, we hear that is was dark approx. half an hour before dawn when there was a street lamp at the end of Buck's Row.

You would have to assume it would have been at least equally dark at the back of 29 Hanbury Street given there was no artificial lighting.

That being said, half an hour before dawn doesn't tell us what it was like at dawn.

I live in the country, and 'round the back of my house there is no artificial lighting, but using that as a gauge wouldn't tell us anything because it's not Victorian London when air pollution was at its peak.

I've been looking around for witness statements at the break of dawn, but so far no luck and I'm a bit busy with stuff, e.g. photo editing wildlife pictures and the like, but it is one I'm going to come back to and do a bit more digging.

Edited to add: Ms Diddles, I should have said what it was like just before dawn as opposed to what it was like at dawn.

I'm genuinely struggling to follow this argument. If I understand it correctly, it is being claimed that due to the very early time in the morning, plus the London smog, Richardson could very easily have missed seeing the body at his feet when he was working on his boot at about 4. 50 am. Therefore the body was really there, the estimated time of death is correct, and JtR in the even darker conditions prior to 4.30 am, murdered Chapman silently with perfect efficiency, and carried out his deliberate mutilations with sufficient skill for Phillips to believe he possessed anatomical knowledge - all in darkness where you cannot see what is at your feet.