John Richardson

[The Macdonald Triad]

Echo 19 Sep:
Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.

Swanson said the police suspected Richardson and thoroughly investigated him. There is no reason why they wouldn't have required a re-enactment. No evidence was found for his guilt, only that he was mistaken.

Old hat?....a current poll that is fairly worded?.....not devised by Sir Humphrey Appleby?

Communication was lacking in 1888. There were no teletypes, mug books and reporters were the sketch artists. I can't reiterate that enough. Abberline could be talking to some random passerby on the street about cricket and broads and that same passerby could be identified by scores of witnesses as dodgy or suspect but without a picture what is in a description? What really gets me is that it would appear by a preponderance of the evidence that Pizer confronted Richardson in front of a reporter no less and the reporter takes Richardsons word for it? Why because Richardson was Anglo, and Pizer was a Jew? This is the essence of why this wasn't solved at the time. It could never be a proper Englishman!

[FISHY1118]

Echo 19 Sep:
Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.

Swanson said the police suspected Richardson and thoroughly investigated him. There is no reason why they wouldn't have required a re-enactment. No evidence was found for his guilt, only that he was mistaken.

Old hat?....a current poll that is fairly worded?.....not devised by Sir Humphrey Appleby?

So we have the police authorities and dr Phillips in agreement that Richardson was mistaken, according to that press report.

I guess 134 years later its just easy ... to say they were wrong.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Jeff,

I've just looked at Herlock's poll. "The English Language and the purpose of a caveat."

A caveat is a legal term mostly used to register an interest for land titles. It is a warning that particular things need to be considered before something can be done. Phillips never said it was a caveat, that is a recent description.

Looking at Herlock's poll, I'm sure that Sir Humphrey Appleby was the author. One answer to give the desired result and the other generalised and distorted. A nice little mouse trap. How does one vote for Phillips adding a qualification on how much over the minimum the PMI might be?

Best regards, George

I never understood why on earth that word was ever used with Phillips .t.o.d. ,thanks George

You noticed that little set up too i see
.
Pointless Really

[GBinOz]

To favour the Doctor is unreasonable. He has to be dismissed.

We'll have to promote you to official Casebook Umpire Herlock, with all the dismissals that you call. How is the Doctor to be dismissed? Hit wicket perhaps, like Solomon when he played back to Benaud and his cap fell on the wicket and dislodged the bail?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

So we have the police authorities and dr Phillips in agreement that Richardson was mistaken, according to that press report.

I guess 134 years later its just easy ... to say they were wrong.

Hi Fishy,

Richardson's story was not well received by the coroner either. This from the East London Observer 15 Sep:
The Coroner was very severe on him over the story of the knife with which he had cut a piece of leather off his boot before five o'clock on Friday morning, on the stone steps near which the body was found. He wanted to know why he had the knife, why he should put a table knife in his pocket, and altogether made the witness look very uneasy and very uncomfortable. His discomfort was increased when, at the suggestion of the Coroner, he was sent off in charge of Inspector Chandler to find the knife with which he had cut the leather off his boot.
John Richardson having returned at this point, red and out of breath, produced the rusty little table knife without a handle, which was closely examined by the jury without remark.

I particularly like Jon's comment on the knife in his post # 703:
The knife, well, if you called it what it was, a butter-knife, and with a broken blade too. It's not the instrument the doctors were describing, so it might as well have been a spoon.

Swanson's report 19 Oct (Ref. HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 137-45)
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."

Swanson's report indicates that the police were having difficulty believing how Richardson missed the body, and this was creating suspicions about him. The Echo report clearly states that the conclusion was that Phillips was correct and the reason Richardson missed the body was because the door obscured his view. It is difficult to image that they would have arrived at this conclusion without having done a recreation, which may be what got Richardson off the hook. The Echo report dovetails perfectly with Swanson's report.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

Richardson's story was not well received by the coroner either. This from the East London Observer 15 Sep:
The Coroner was very severe on him over the story of the knife with which he had cut a piece of leather off his boot before five o'clock on Friday morning, on the stone steps near which the body was found. He wanted to know why he had the knife, why he should put a table knife in his pocket, and altogether made the witness look very uneasy and very uncomfortable. His discomfort was increased when, at the suggestion of the Coroner, he was sent off in charge of Inspector Chandler to find the knife with which he had cut the leather off his boot.
John Richardson having returned at this point, red and out of breath, produced the rusty little table knife without a handle, which was closely examined by the jury without remark.

I particularly like Jon's comment on the knife in his post # 703:
The knife, well, if you called it what it was, a butter-knife, and with a broken blade too. It's not the instrument the doctors were describing, so it might as well have been a spoon.

Swanson's report 19 Oct (Ref. HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 137-45)
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."

Swanson's report indicates that the police were having difficulty believing how Richardson missed the body, and this was creating suspicions about him. The Echo report clearly states that the conclusion was that Phillips was correct and the reason Richardson missed the body was because the door obscured his view. It is difficult to image that they would have arrived at this conclusion without having done a recreation, which may be what got Richardson off the hook. The Echo report dovetails perfectly with Swanson's report.

Cheers, George

Nice researching George ,

I guess all this information we have at our disposal pretty confirms what this dedate has been about right from the start. That is, a 5.30 am ,even a ''more probable'' 5.30am is just no where near a certainty, based on witness testimony alone .

[Herlock Sholmes]

We'll have to promote you to official Casebook Umpire Herlock, with all the dismissals that you call. How is the Doctor to be dismissed? Hit wicket perhaps, like Solomon when he played back to Benaud and his cap fell on the wicket and dislodged the bail?

Cheers, George

That Phillips opinion has to be sideline, dismissed, put aside, however we wish to term it George is about as obvious a statement as can be so I can’t see why I have to keep explaining it but I will, again. We know for an absolutely, unequivocal, categorical, undeniable, certainty that a Victorian Doctors TOD estimate cannot be held as reliable. This doesn’t mean that he couldn’t on occasions get it right but he could also get it wrong. We, 134 years later, have absolutely no way of evaluating his estimate so we are still in a position of ‘he might have been right, he might have been wrong.’ It has even been shown by Jeff that a later TOD would be considered a reasonable margin for error on Phillips estimate.

So Dr. Phillips might have been right or Dr. Phillips might have been wrong. How can that possibly help us in any way? And it absolutely means that witnesses cannot be dismissed just on the grounds of Phillips estimate.

So Dr. Phillips TOD estimate gets us nowhere. Therefore Dr. Phillips TOD estimate has to be eliminated as a valid point in any debate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry to disappoint you Herlock, but the poll here : https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-of-death-poll
has 28 votes distributed 14/14.

Cheers, George

It’s noticeable George that you dug all the way back to 2012 to find this poll whilst ignoring this one from 2019.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ess#post725586

Was Richardson a reliable witness? 84% said yes, 10% said no, 5% undecided.

or this one, also from 2019 on Chapmans TOD.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ath#post718125

Phillips correct 6%, Cadosch and Richardson correct but Long wrong 26%, Long correct but Richardson and Cadosch wrong 0%, Richardson, Cadosc and Long all correct but timings out 66%

I can see why you skipped past these George. Pretty conclusive on modern opinion I’d say.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jeff,

I've just looked at Herlock's poll. "The English Language and the purpose of a caveat."

A caveat is a legal term mostly used to register an interest for land titles. It is a warning that particular things need to be considered before something can be done. Phillips never said it was a caveat, that is a recent description.

Looking at Herlock's poll, I'm sure that Sir Humphrey Appleby was the author. One answer to give the desired result and the other generalised and distorted. A nice little mouse trap. How does one vote for Phillips adding a qualification on how much over the minimum the PMI might be?

Best regards, George

The poll is perfectly clear and cannot be misunderstood. And the results show us that most posters on here understand the language.

Sorry George but you sound like Donald Trump: “it was a fix!”

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fishy,

Richardson's story was not well received by the coroner either. This from the East London Observer 15 Sep:
The Coroner was very severe on him over the story of the knife with which he had cut a piece of leather off his boot before five o'clock on Friday morning, on the stone steps near which the body was found. He wanted to know why he had the knife, why he should put a table knife in his pocket, and altogether made the witness look very uneasy and very uncomfortable. His discomfort was increased when, at the suggestion of the Coroner, he was sent off in charge of Inspector Chandler to find the knife with which he had cut the leather off his boot.
John Richardson having returned at this point, red and out of breath, produced the rusty little table knife without a handle, which was closely examined by the jury without remark.

I particularly like Jon's comment on the knife in his post # 703:
The knife, well, if you called it what it was, a butter-knife, and with a broken blade too. It's not the instrument the doctors were describing, so it might as well have been a spoon.

Swanson's report 19 Oct (Ref. HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 137-45)
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."

Swanson's report indicates that the police were having difficulty believing how Richardson missed the body, and this was creating suspicions about him. The Echo report clearly states that the conclusion was that Phillips was correct and the reason Richardson missed the body was because the door obscured his view. It is difficult to image that they would have arrived at this conclusion without having done a recreation, which may be what got Richardson off the hook. The Echo report dovetails perfectly with Swanson's report.

Cheers, George

In the end, Richardson misled the coroner. That is clear from his his statement. This report from the East London Observer is useful in cementing that point as it sheds light on the state of this knife.

As for 'the poll', I'm scratching my head wondering how a poll on a message board lends weight to the source documents from 1888. I haven't looked at 'the poll' as I've seen enough on this thread to know it's going to be nonsense. 'The poll' serves merely to distract from the source documents and is a very good indicator of the type of reasoning being employed here, i.e. some poll on a message board in 2022 lends weights to a murder case theory from 1888.

Were this a serious discussion, it would be focused on the source documents.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Fishy,

Richardson's story was not well received by the coroner either. This from the East London Observer 15 Sep:
The Coroner was very severe on him over the story of the knife with which he had cut a piece of leather off his boot before five o'clock on Friday morning, on the stone steps near which the body was found. He wanted to know why he had the knife, why he should put a table knife in his pocket, and altogether made the witness look very uneasy and very uncomfortable. His discomfort was increased when, at the suggestion of the Coroner, he was sent off in charge of Inspector Chandler to find the knife with which he had cut the leather off his boot.
John Richardson having returned at this point, red and out of breath, produced the rusty little table knife without a handle, which was closely examined by the jury without remark.

I particularly like Jon's comment on the knife in his post # 703:
The knife, well, if you called it what it was, a butter-knife, and with a broken blade too. It's not the instrument the doctors were describing, so it might as well have been a spoon.

Swanson's report 19 Oct (Ref. HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 137-45)
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."

Swanson's report indicates that the police were having difficulty believing how Richardson missed the body, and this was creating suspicions about him. The Echo report clearly states that the conclusion was that Phillips was correct and the reason Richardson missed the body was because the door obscured his view. It is difficult to image that they would have arrived at this conclusion without having done a recreation, which may be what got Richardson off the hook. The Echo report dovetails perfectly with Swanson's report.

Cheers, George

Which ‘dovetails’ perfectly with our modern day knowledge. At that time they would have been inclined towards a Doctors opinion. In 2022 we know better.

The Police clearly though that Richardson couldn’t have missed the body had it been there. And it wasn’t.

[The Macdonald Triad]

John Richardson was Jack the Ripper. Diddle each other silly. Nobody wants this smoke.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Good poll. I opted for earlier in darkness.

In relation to this case, polls don't tell us anything, it doesn't matter whether it's 14/14 or 1000/0.

There will be people in any poll who don't know a great deal about the source material, and/or lack reasoning skills and so on; and so it's merely a repetition of theories, some of which are built upon loose foundations.

What should be under discussion is the source material, these polls or whatever merely serve as a distraction.

The whole discussion has been hijacked. Argument ad hominem all over the place and it's been led away from the source material to some poll or polls which has/have no significance to a murder case from 1888.

I would suggest that the thread loses the childish posts and gets back to its source material, otherwise the thread needs putting out of its misery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In the end, Richardson misled the coroner. That is clear from his his statement. This report from the East London Observer is useful in cementing that point as it sheds light on the state of this knife.

This is untrue of course.

As for 'the poll', I'm scratching my head wondering how a poll on a message board lends weight to the source documents from 1888. I haven't looked at 'the poll' as I've seen enough on this thread to know it's going to be nonsense. 'The poll' serves merely to distract from the source documents and is a very good indicator of the type of reasoning being employed here, i.e. some poll on a message board in 2022 lends weights to a murder case theory from 1888.

Were this a serious discussion, it would be focused on the source documents.

What’s the point when you clearly don’t understand English?

Were this a serious discussion we wouldn’t have people claiming to know better than the worlds forensic experts. We wouldn’t have people blathering on about Phillips TOD guess. We wouldn’t have people relying on unrealistic and pointless lies plus absolutely mind-numbing stupidity to shoehorn their their theories in to place. But that’s what we get.

[Fleetwood Mac]

John Richardson was Jack the Ripper. Diddle each other silly. Nobody wants this smoke.

Like all of the suspects, there simply isn't enough to connect any one person or persons to the murders.

'Shame some of the source material was destroyed, who knows what we're missing.