John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

What’s wrong with a Black Country accent?

I have good mates from that part of the world, Sherlock.

Not necessarily Walsall, but very close.

'Absolutely nothing wrong with that accent.

But, in the context of your posts, anyone who knows that accent well will find your ranting just that bit funnier.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have good mates from that part of the world, Sherlock.

Not necessarily Walsall, but very close.

'Absolutely nothing wrong with that accent.

But, in the context of your posts, anyone who knows that accent well will find your ranting just that bit funnier.

As we know that you have issues with the English language I guess that, for you, ‘ranting’ means easily taking apart your desperate attempts to manipulate the evidence to suit your own agenda.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As we know that you have issues with the English language

I did concede that I struggle with semi-literate English, aye.

[etenguy]

Another aspect to this door business.

The door was at the top of the stairs. Richardson opens it and sits on the stairs. The bottom of the door is still at top step height, it doesn't drop down to ground level, so wouldn't fully hide a body at that level, even if it wasn't laying flat. He'd still have seen some of it as a minimum.

Hi Dickere

I absolutely agree. If the body was there, Richardson couldn`t fail to see it. So either the body was not there or Richardson was lying.

[FISHY1118]

Because Dr Brown found "very little" food in the stomach. That is inconsistent with a very recent meal.

But if Eddowes could have eaten food in the short time between her release and her murder, so could Chapman in the three hours and thirty minutes between 2am and 5.30. Either way, the comparison shows that the stomach contents point is dead in the water.

The fact that the very small amount of food found in Eddowes stomach was partially digested indicates that she had eaten some time prior to her death to allow for the partial digestion

Still that ''very little'' could have been eaten between 1.00 and 1.40am like i suggested .

So she ''Could'' have eaten something , therefor we cant just say she ''Couldnt'' have eaten anything, that would be wrong.....Right?

[FISHY1118]

Hi Helen,

The difference is basically down to the reliability of Dr. Phillips estimate of the TOD (and an assessment of the witnesses of course.)

None of us on here are experts on forensic medicine so we have to go to the experts and they all, without exception, tell us that TOD estimation isn’t even that accurate today as there are too many contributing factors and there are some of those factors that Dr. Phillips wouldn’t even have been aware of as having an effect. There’s a very long list of contributing factors. Basically he noted a bit of stiffening and found some residual heat and that parts of the body was cold by using his hand. Even today with thermometers and probes and 134 years of accumulated scientific advancement a Forensic Scientist wouldn’t have been able to say 2 hours minimum with the Police taking that as an inarguable fact. It’s simply not possible.So the best that we can say is that, for all that we know, the Doctors minimum estimate might have been correct or it might have been wrong. We have absolutely no way of judging it’s accuracy. Even if we took a modern day forensic expert back in a time machine he wouldn’t be able to tie the TOD to an exact minimum of 2 hours.

So my position (and the position of the majority on here) is that ‘might have been accurate/might not have been accurate, gets us nowhere and can never get us anywhere. Therefore we’re left to assess the 3 witness who contradict this earlier TOD. So unless FM concedes that Phillips estimate can’t be considered reliable and has to be sidelined I see no way forward. He wants to try and skew this so that he can somehow say that it was either impossible for a less than 2 hour TOD to have occurred or that an earlier TOD was overwhelmingly likely. Even if we could say that there was a 75% of Phillips being right it still wouldn’t eliminate the witnesses so not only is he trying to achieve the impossible he’s doing it by ignoring every single forensic expert that ever put pen to paper.

My apologies for the long reply Helen.

With 1 Notable exception at least , Fishermans post .

That position of your tells helen nothing.

As does the Dr evidence contradict the ambiguious , uncertain , witnesses testimonies.

overwhelmingly t.o.d cannot be established as later or earlier

''ignoring every single forensic expert that ever put pen to paper''. Way to melodramatic and over the top, nonsense really.

[Robert St Devil]

Still that ''very little'' could have been eaten between 1.00 and 1.40am like i suggested .

So she ''Could'' have eaten something , therefor we cant just say she ''Couldnt'' have eaten anything, that would be wrong.....Right?

It could be likely that she ate after her release or upon waking up in prison, Fishy. One thing we know for sure about Catherine Eddowes is that she went to jail for being knockdown drunk. Without absolute certainty, i would reason that it may have taken more than a few sips to get her in that manner of inebriated condition. What is a safe guesstimate - a pint, two, three? Eitherway, at the time of her autopsy, the coroner finds small amounts of liquid, meaning that all that alcohol had been absorbed up which could also be an indicator that anything else which she had consumed prior to prison may have have been digested as well.

[FISHY1118]

It could be likely that she ate after her release or upon waking up in prison, Fishy. One thing we know for sure about Catherine Eddowes is that she went to jail for being knockdown drunk. Without absolute certainty, i would reason that it may have taken more than a few sips to get her in that manner of inebriated condition. What is a safe guesstimate - a pint, two, three? Eitherway, at the time of her autopsy, the coroner finds small amounts of liquid, meaning that all that alcohol had been absorbed up which could also be an indicator that anything else which she had consumed prior to prison may have have been digested as well.

Dr Brown ''I removed the content of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination. There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid, but from the cut end partly digested farinaceous food escaped''.

Dr Browns full quote. Just for ref.

Yes its possible she did eat between 1.00 1.40 ,if someone wants to claim even unlikey ill accept that no problem , but to say she ''couldnt'' have eaten is incorrect .

[FISHY1118]

What we should do is completely disregard Phillips because that’s the only reasonable thing to do. Phillips is irrelevant so we have 3 witnesses all pointing to an earlier TOD. There’s not a single suggestion that either one of them lied so we have to assess if they could have been mistaken.

Could Long have been mistaken? Certainly she could have been.
Could Cadosch have been mistaken? It’s very difficult to see how. He was honest about the ‘No’ so it’s entirely reasonable to assume that he was honest about the noise. So he heard a noise coming from a yard that, if there was a body there, could only have been the killer.
Could Richardson have been mistaken? It’s about as unlikely as you could get. He knew what a door was and that a door can potentially block someone’s view. He couldn’t have ‘not realised’ this. Therefore we’re left with a man (with zero reason for lying) who was 100% certain that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there.

Therefore the only reasonable position is that it’s overwhelmingly likely (not even close) that Chapman was killed later.

All these points have been covered many times and answered, you have already read them. You dont agree, up to you . I and others have accepted that , however we dont see it like that .The evidence that we interpret draws a different conclusion from the witnesess and expert medical opinion which has been endorsed [fisherman ]. So based on all the evidence an earlier t.o.d is just as possible and indeed conceivable .

[Parisi North Humber]

Thank you Herlock for taking the time to reply. Fishy perhaps a list of what IS in agreement would help. For instance:

Annie was seen eating potatoes at her last confirmed sighting.
Annie was murdered sometime after 1.50am,
Annie died within a 4 hour window,
Richardson claimed to be in the yard at 4.45 am,
Annie's body was discovered at approx 6.am by John Davis Dr Philips examined her body at approx 6.30 am,
Annie was malnourished and had TB.

I think all the above are undisputed ( but please delete if any are). So what else can be inserted into the timeline especially regarding Richardson that all posters are in agreement with?

I know it seems a little retrograde but perhaps if we start from a simpler and methodical approach to undisputed facts a hitherto undiscussed area of agreement may come to light.

Helen x

[FISHY1118]

Thank you Herlock for taking the time to reply. Fishy perhaps a list of what IS in agreement would help. For instance:

Annie was seen eating potatoes at her last confirmed sighting.
Annie was murdered sometime after 1.50am,
Annie died within a 4 hour window,
Richardson claimed to be in the yard at 4.45 am,
Annie's body was discovered at approx 6.am by John Davis Dr Philips examined her body at approx 6.30 am,
Annie was malnourished and had TB.

I think all the above are undisputed ( but please delete if any are). So what else can be inserted into the timeline especially regarding Richardson that all posters are in agreement with?

I know it seems a little retrograde but perhaps if we start from a simpler and methodical approach to undisputed facts a hitherto undiscussed area of agreement may come to light.

Helen x

Thanks Helen , But i think my last post pretty much sums up my thoughts on whats aready been discussed many times over, and my own personnal thoughts /opinion on when Annie Chapman was Murdered .Based on my interpretation and understanding of all the evidence available so far .

[Fleetwood Mac]

It explains why some are willing to defy reason to promote Phillips inaccurate guess and to invent issues against witnesses.

Dr Phillips' examination and observations should be taken on its merit.

Imposing 'keeping Lechmere in the game' into the discussion is childish and argument ad hominem.

Nobody here really cares about Lechmere. You may have a poster who has a theory surrounding Lechmere, but that doesn't negate the argument that Dr Phillips could quite conceivably have been accurate.

Argue the point honestly, fairly and with focus on the merits of the point. Leave Lechmere and whomever else to a thread discussing those suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Still that ''very little'' could have been eaten between 1.00 and 1.40am like i suggested .

So she ''Could'' have eaten something , therefor we cant just say she ''Couldnt'' have eaten anything, that would be wrong.....Right?

Ok Fishy. It would be more accurate to say that would have been less likely to have eaten in the 40 minutes after being released from a police station that Chapman might have been during the unaccounted for 3 and half hours or so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With 1 Notable exception at least , Fishermans post .

That position of your tells helen nothing.

As does the Dr evidence contradict the ambiguious , uncertain , witnesses testimonies.

overwhelmingly t.o.d cannot be established as later or earlier

''ignoring every single forensic expert that ever put pen to paper''. Way to melodramatic and over the top, nonsense really.

It tells her everything Fishy. If when talking about Fisherman I assume you mean Thiblin. I assume that you’re ignoring the part where he said that Annie could have been killed at 5.30?

You keep using these inappropriate words to describe the witnesses. Ambiguous - there’s nothing ‘ambiguous’ about them. If you use conspiracy theorist thinking you can find suspicion in anything. Uncertain - where? Richardson was 100 certain that the body wasn’t there. Cadosch was certain that he heard s noise coming from number 29 and Long appeared certain that the woman that she saw was Chapman. You might disagree with them but they can’t be called uncertain because they were the opposite of that.

[FISHY1118]

Ok Fishy. It would be more accurate to say that would have been less likely to have eaten in the 40 minutes after being released from a police station that Chapman might have been during the unaccounted for 3 and half hours or so.

Well at least you agreed on something .