Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

    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.
    There are a series of posts on this over the last couple of pages, they should help you to understand.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

      There are a series of posts on this over the last couple of pages, they should help you to understand.
      I have read them; they are what has caused me problems. You have seen my post above, so what part of your argument do I not understand?

      Comment


      • Following all the posts on this my opinion hasn't changed:
        • Phillips, with all his experience offers a best estimate of at least two hours, probably more (? - 4.30 am)
        • he offers a caveat to encompass uncertainty about some specific considerations that mean it could be less
        • this window of opportunity overlaps with reasonable accounts that:
          • the body wasn't there
          • a potential sighting at about 5.30
          • noises that whilst not uncommon could have been the murder taking place and the murderer moving about
        • modern data of rigor developing fully in as little as 1-2 hours offers an entirely plausible reinterpretation of Phillips' account
        • murder in daylight may explain the apparent skill that was commented on - i.e., he could see what he was doing.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Hi Ms Diddles,

          So would you agree that 40 minutes later it would have been daylight, and no-one could have missed the basin full of water in which one could have washed his hands? Would you also agree that anyone that looked out of their window would have had more than enough light to make a positive identification of the murderer? And wouldn't Jack, having failed to avail himself of the basin of water, run a huge risk of being observed with blood on his hands in (broad) daylight as he emerged onto the street on market day?

          Cheers, George
          Hi George,

          Yep, I would agree with the above statement.

          I see Hanbury St as being a ludicrously high risk murder site as it was overlooked by so many windows.

          That however is not inconsistent with the other murder sites (Dutfield's yard - a dead end with people popping in and out of the Socialist Club / Mitre Square - regular police beats, an on site night watchman and a police officer residing at the same location).

          The killer appears not to be terribly risk averse to my mind.

          As long as he wasn't drenched in blood, all he had to do was pop his hands in his pockets and long as he's not stopped and searched, he's in the clear until he can find a suitable water source.

          It's probably not a nice sensation walking around with sticky dried blood on your paws, but then I imagine neither is raking around in some poor woman's innards, but he didn't appear too icky about that!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
            Following all the posts on this my opinion hasn't changed:
            • Phillips, with all his experience offers a best estimate of at least two hours, probably more (? - 4.30 am)
            • he offers a caveat to encompass uncertainty about some specific considerations that mean it could be less
            • this window of opportunity overlaps with reasonable accounts that:
              • the body wasn't there
              • a potential sighting at about 5.30
              • noises that whilst not uncommon could have been the murder taking place and the murderer moving about
            • modern data of rigor developing fully in as little as 1-2 hours offers an entirely plausible reinterpretation of Phillips' account
            • murder in daylight may explain the apparent skill that was commented on - i.e., he could see what he was doing.
            I think that encapsulates a genuinely possible version. Personally, I do not push enthusiastically for the acceptance of Long and Cadosche, but I am strongly tempted to go for a ToD after 4. 50 am, which might allow their evidence.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

              I think that encapsulates a genuinely possible version. Personally, I do not push enthusiastically for the acceptance of Long and Cadosche, but I am strongly tempted to go for a ToD after 4. 50 am, which might allow their evidence.
              yes DW that is fair enough. my issues with the alternative are the unrealistic accuracy put on DrP and the weird twisting of some alternative use of English to explain his caveat, which is clearly nonsense. DrP's lower limit (4.30) is so close to as be really indistinguishable from the witness timings. Taking into account his caveat and modern examples they are fully in play and I don't have an issue with R. with the latter i really don't see an issue - his boot is a bit of a bother and he tries a quick mend with a knife that may be good for carrots but no leather/rubber/whatever it was. he then does a better repair with a better knife at work. what is the issue?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                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
                Jeff,

                If the Nobel committee ever decide to create a prize for contributions to Ripper related science, your name is on it!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

                  Jeff,

                  If the Nobel committee ever decide to create a prize for contributions to Ripper related science, your name is on it!

                  Hear, hear
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                    yes DW that is fair enough. my issues with the alternative are the unrealistic accuracy put on DrP and the weird twisting of some alternative use of English to explain his caveat, which is clearly nonsense. DrP's lower limit (4.30) is so close to as be really indistinguishable from the witness timings. Taking into account his caveat and modern examples they are fully in play and I don't have an issue with R. with the latter i really don't see an issue - his boot is a bit of a bother and he tries a quick mend with a knife that may be good for carrots but no leather/rubber/whatever it was. he then does a better repair with a better knife at work. what is the issue?
                    There shouldn’t be one Wulf.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

                      Jeff,

                      If the Nobel committee ever decide to create a prize for contributions to Ripper related science, your name is on it!

                      ha ha! Thanks, but for some things, like dawn, it's more to the credit of Dr. Google. I just got curious as to how they calculated the time for Dawn and what the definition of dawn was within that context. The more forensic bits are based upon actual research papers, and ones where I can examine the data myself, then I just share what I found of other people's hard work.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                        his boot is a bit of a bother and he tries a quick mend with a knife that may be good for carrots but no leather/rubber/whatever it was. he then does a better repair with a better knife at work. what is the issue?
                        The issue is: Richardson didn't say that. You, and a few others, have plucked that out of thin air, i.e. bent his words to suit your ill-conceived theory.

                        He stated he cut his boot with his knife: "cut off a piece of leather five inches long". He was told to fetch his knife. He fetched his knife. He then stated it wasn't sharp enough and so he had to borrow one. And, that's it, that is what he stated. By all means, make it up as you go along, be my guest; but it will not change the fact that you're simply pulling rabbits out of a hat.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                          The issue is: Richardson didn't say that. You, and a few others, have plucked that out of thin air, i.e. bent his words to suit your ill-conceived theory.

                          He stated he cut his boot with his knife: "cut off a piece of leather five inches long". He was told to fetch his knife. He fetched his knife. He then stated it wasn't sharp enough and so he had to borrow one. And, that's it, that is what he stated. By all means, make it up as you go along, be my guest; but it will not change the fact that you're simply pulling rabbits out of a hat.
                          so what? whatever he did in the yard he said wasn't enough, so he tried again later.

                          I've read most of your posts FM and I have an opinion that you carry a pocket mirror about with you, and use it regularly to look at yourself.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                            so what? whatever he did in the yard he said wasn't enough, so he tried again later.

                            I've read most of your posts FM and I have an opinion that you carry a pocket mirror about with you, and use it regularly to look at yourself.
                            I see.

                            On the first point, he didn't say: "it wasn't enough". You're pulling rabbits out of a hat again.

                            On the second point, you should start a thread on this and leave this thread to discuss Richardson.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              Hi Ms Diddles,

                              So would you agree that 40 minutes later it would have been daylight, and no-one could have missed the basin full of water in which one could have washed his hands? Would you also agree that anyone that looked out of their window would have had more than enough light to make a positive identification of the murderer? And wouldn't Jack, having failed to avail himself of the basin of water, run a huge risk of being observed with blood on his hands in (broad) daylight as he emerged onto the street on market day?

                              Cheers, George
                              Hello George,

                              How certain can we be that the killer would have had blood on his hands though? We could be straying into a tangent here but what do you (or anyone else) think about the possibility of the ripper taking precautions against getting blood on him to at least some extent? After all, he could never have relied on access to clean up facilities. Yes, walking through the streets in the dark would have helped with his hands but there were still street lights and Constable’s on patrol and the possibility of being seen by anyone that lived in the same building when he returned. And what if he’d got blood on the front of his clothes or on his sleeves? Strangulation first would help by eliminating spray of course but there was still a risk of getting an amount of blood on him.

                              Could the killer have worn gloves? I can’t see anything of a stretch of the imagination in this suggestion. My next one might raise eyebrows but could he also have worn a longish coat? If he first strangled his victim it would have taken him all of three seconds to have taken off a coat and dropping it on the floor. He then mutilates, potentially getting blood on his clothing, slips the coat back on in 5 seconds and off he goes.

                              I’ll stress that I’m not trying to say that this is certainly what happened but, although we know that there were unavoidable risks involved and the killer would have been fully aware of them; and to some extent accepting of them, why would it be so strange for our killer to have taken a couple of simple precautions?
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                                I see.

                                On the first point, he didn't say: "it wasn't enough". You're pulling rabbits out of a hat again.

                                On the second point, you should start a thread on this and leave this thread to discuss Richardson.
                                [Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market.

                                produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.

                                so he did a first repair, not enough, does a second repair at the market with a better knife. i genuinely don't know what your issue is

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X