John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

EVERYONE is by now very well aware of your opinions. NOONE wants another recitation of those opinions with your apparently obligatory insulting conclusion. You have drawn your conclusions, others have drawn theirs. Anyone with even a scintilla of reason will accept that fact graciously.

Cheers, George

Ive insulted no one George but sadly I can see that you continue to turn a blind eye to the insults from others. I’m not going to accept bias gracefully I’m afraid and that’s what’s going on here; transparent bias. This needs be opposed. But I’m bored with the barrel-scraping on here so I’ll be more than happy if this thread dies a death. I’m quite happy to agreed with by Jeff, Wickerman, Joshua, Abby, Wulf, Dusty, Kattrup, Ms D, Doc etc, over Fishy, Harry and FM and day of the week.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The evidence, if we avoid lies, manipulations and offences to the English language points to a TOD around 5.20-5.30.

[FISHY1118]

The evidence, if we use logic ,common sense , deduction, mistaken , and uncertain witness testimony, also supports an eariler time of death 3.30 to 4.30 am

[Fleetwood Mac]

I wonder what the odds are that the 3 witnesses on Chapman’s TOD are all lying, mistaken or monumentally stupid?

I'm reserving judgement until I see your poll and its results.

When the votes are cast, the odds turn out to be 3 zillion to 1, and you return to announce "game over" with an accompanying emoji: that's when I'll know the matter is concluded.

When are the results in by the way? 'Should I wait up tonight? I could probably stretch to 3 in the morning.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

Yes, that would be my considered opinion. Others are free to disagree, and that is their prerogative.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Aye, it's gone backwards and forwards and at this point there's nothing new and refreshing, and so it's just ran out of steam really.

[GBinOz]

Ive insulted no one George but sadly I can see that you continue to turn a blind eye to the insults from others. I’m not going to accept bias gracefully I’m afraid and that’s what’s going on here; transparent bias. This needs be opposed. But I’m bored with the barrel-scraping on here so I’ll be more than happy if this thread dies a death. I’m quite happy to agreed with by Jeff, Wickerman, Joshua, Abby, Wulf, Dusty, Kattrup, Ms D, Doc etc, over Fishy, Harry and FM and day of the week.

Herlock,

Insults exchanged between persons are for the parties involved. Your insults are often directed at everyone that doesn't support your opinions and conclusions. Not that the recipients are mortified by such attacks, it's just not useful in productive debate. I am glad that a number of posters agreeing with you makes you happy.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

It gives me hope for the subject George. Reason should prevail; silliness and bias gets pushed to the fringes. The polls reflect this.

Im happy with that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm reserving judgement until I see your poll and its results.

When the votes are cast, the odds turn out to be 3 zillion to 1, and you return to announce "game over" with an accompanying emoji: that's when I'll know the matter is concluded.

When are the results in by the way? 'Should I wait up tonight? I could probably stretch to 3 in the morning.

No need to reserve judgment on Phillips though. He’s a proven irrelevance. John Richardson, one of the strongest witnesses in the case, tells us that there was no body there at 4.45. The manipulations employed to discredit him can and should be ignored.

[Fleetwood Mac]

No need to reserve judgment on Phillips though. He’s a proven irrelevance. John Richardson, one of the strongest witnesses in the case, tells us that there was no body there at 4.45. The manipulations employed to discredit him can and should be ignored.

Game Over.

For the love of God, may this thread rest in peace.

[Trevor Marriott]

No need to reserve judgment on Phillips though. He’s a proven irrelevance. John Richardson, one of the strongest witnesses in the case, tells us that there was no body there at 4.45. The manipulations employed to discredit him can and should be ignored.

Give it up man, you have made your opinion known may times no need to keep repeating it

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n788839
Could it be possible Richardson missed the body that was there because he only stood on the step and looked into the yard ? Perhaps giving an earlier t.o.d [/QUOTE]

Hi Fishy

To revert to the original question - my answer is the scenario you describe might potentially be true but very unlikely given what we know of the yard layout and where John claimed to be. Annie`s body would have literlly been at his feet and the gap at the bottom of the door was too large to mask a body.

The best evidence for time of death comes from the witness statements, in my view. To have three witnesses who indepently verify each other is compelling. The doctor's estimate is insuffciently reliable to provide the t.o.d. with the precision required to be helpful, which he has the good grace to draw our attention to.

[GBinOz]

Hi Fishy

To revert to the original question - my answer is the scenario you describe might potentially be true but very unlikely given what we know of the yard layout and where John claimed to be. Annie`s body would have literlly been at his feet and the gap at the bottom of the door was too large to mask a body.

The best evidence for time of death comes from the witness statements, in my view. To have three witnesses who indepently verify each other is compelling. The doctor's estimate is insuffciently reliable to provide the t.o.d. with the precision required to be helpful, which he has the good grace to draw our attention to.

Hi etenguy,

What we know of the yard layout, and where John claimed to be sitting, and the door is speculative. The facts lie in this extract from the 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.

The police subjected Richardson to an intensive investigation. You'll notice the police determined that he missed noticing the body and explained the reason as a fact. No "possibly", or "might have", or "could have". The only way this could have been determined was with a re-enactment where Richardson would have been required to show how he sat on the step, which way he was facing and where was the door in relation to his body. Using this method the police were able to determine that the door would have obstructed his view, as a fact. They also agreed with Phillips that the body was there, but that part can not be accepted as a fact, only that the police supported Phillip's medical opinion over that of Richardson. It also indicates that Phillips had confidence in his 2 hour minimum, and probably more, PMI (despite the result of polls to the contrary).

The rebuttal is usually the unreliability of newspaper "tattle". Since most records have been lost and we rely primarily on newspaper reports for both interviews and inquest reports, if reports that don't suit a particular argument are to be dismissed there will be very little left to examine.

Cheers, George

[Varqm]

Hi etenguy,

What we know of the yard layout, and where John claimed to be sitting, and the door is speculative. The facts lie in this extract from the 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.

The police subjected Richardson to an intensive investigation. You'll notice the police determined that he missed noticing the body and explained the reason as a fact. No "possibly", or "might have", or "could have". The only way this could have been determined was with a re-enactment where Richardson would have been required to show how he sat on the step, which way he was facing and where was the door in relation to his body. Using this method the police were able to determine that the door would have obstructed his view, as a fact. They also agreed with Phillips that the body was there, but that part can not be accepted as a fact, only that the police supported Phillip's medical opinion over that of Richardson. It also indicates that Phillips had confidence in his 2 hour minimum, and probably more, PMI (despite the result of polls to the contrary).

The rebuttal is usually the unreliability of newspaper "tattle". Since most records have been lost and we rely primarily on newspaper reports for both interviews and inquest reports, if reports that don't suit a particular argument are to be dismissed there will be very little left to examine.

Cheers, George

It's not about newspaper reports.It was about the inquest,where witnesses were under oath with the threat of fines.

[FISHY1118]

Hi etenguy,

What we know of the yard layout, and where John claimed to be sitting, and the door is speculative. The facts lie in this extract from the 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.

The police subjected Richardson to an intensive investigation. You'll notice the police determined that he missed noticing the body and explained the reason as a fact. No "possibly", or "might have", or "could have". The only way this could have been determined was with a re-enactment where Richardson would have been required to show how he sat on the step, which way he was facing and where was the door in relation to his body. Using this method the police were able to determine that the door would have obstructed his view, as a fact. They also agreed with Phillips that the body was there, but that part can not be accepted as a fact, only that the police supported Phillip's medical opinion over that of Richardson. It also indicates that Phillips had confidence in his 2 hour minimum, and probably more, PMI (despite the result of polls to the contrary).

The rebuttal is usually the unreliability of newspaper "tattle". Since most records have been lost and we rely primarily on newspaper reports for both interviews and inquest reports, if reports that don't suit a particular argument are to be dismissed there will be very little left to examine.

Cheers, George

Hi George , Thanks for replying on by behalf , i just might add a thing or two which ive covered already pretty extensively in previous post .

That Richardsons himself said checked the cellar lock from the doorstep then turn and went on to work , ive merely suggested the possiblity that when he did this he may have had the door open just enough to see the lock, thus not seeing the body . This is all he told inspector Chandler he did on the morning of the murder . [1st sentence only just for someones clarification]

I just find it strange that if two hours earlier he sat on the middle step to cut the leather off his boot he failed to disclose this information to Chandler, that has me baffled.

One would surely be more forthcoming with that sort of information seeings how if he sat next to a mutilated corps might/should his words be something more like . '' For f### sake Chandler i sat on that very spot two hours ago she was no way right next to me then ''.

Yes he does say this afterwards but on the morning that the murder took place ,just two hours previously.....''nothing''. This is a problem with Richardson as i see it .

Together with previous witness testmony and Drs expert medical opinion which cant be ruled out all together. ''Alllllllllllllllll'' the evidence as a whole, for me leads to an earlier t.o.d as an equally sound possibility . My opinion only , others can please themself ,


All this has been cover in this thread many many times over ,its not my intention to debate it should any posters feel the need to , i suggest they read the thread from the start which is what my reply will be . [my caveat ] . , Good luck

[Dickere]

This sounds to me like the police not wanting to challenge the opinion of a respected doctor, instead taking his words as gospel.

He says TOD was earlier. A witness says the body wasn't there when he was on the spot, with a knife. Who would come up with that story ?

Yet the witness seems to have been accepted as truthful by coming up with a compromise of the door blocking his view, rather than the doctor being wrong, which we now know may well have been so.

Was there a reconstruction to support this compromise ? Or was it just accepted ?

The doctor gives Richardson a get-out yet he refuses to take it, instead placing himself at the scene with a knife prior to the body being there. The lack of him in suspect-land strongly suggests the police accepting the doctor's opinion as a fact all too easily.